C++ Elitism Is a Problem

The perception of C++ developers as elitist often stems from the language's complexity and the community's emphasis on its advanced features, which can lead to dismissive attitudes toward simpler languages like C.

The pervasiveness of C is no accident. Born in the early 1970s at Bell Labs, C was designed for systems programming, emphasizing portability, efficiency, and direct hardware access. This made it ideal for building operating systems, and today, C remains the backbone of most major OS kernels.

Linux, Windows (with significant C components), macOS (via its Unix roots), and even embedded systems like those in IoT devices or automotive software are predominantly written in C. Why? Because C compiles to lean, predictable machine code with minimal runtime overhead, allowing fine-grained control over memory and performance—crucial for low-level tasks where every cycle counts.

Languages like C++ build on C's syntax and semantics (C++ is largely a superset of C), but when you need to bootstrap a system from scratch or interface directly with hardware, C's simplicity and lack of abstractions shine.

It's not "antiquated"; it's timelessly efficient like a fork and spoon, powering everything from device drivers to network stacks. Without C, the software ecosystem as we know it simply wouldn't exist in its current form.

Below are examples illustrating this phenomenon, highlighting how C++ developers sometimes overlook C's strengths, despite C's foundational role in computing. These examples draw from discussions, blog posts, and community interactions.

1. Overlooking C's Optimized Library Functions

I must admit, Daniel Lemire's blog is a treasure trove of insightful, well-researched content on performance engineering, algorithms, and the intricacies of modern computing. His posts often dive deep into practical optimizations with clarity and rigor, backed by benchmarks and code that anyone can reproduce.

I've learned a great deal from his work over the years, and I genuinely feel a bit guilty using one of his entries as a cautionary example here. It's not meant as criticism of his expertise—far from it—but rather to illustrate a broader point about attitudes in programming communities. With that said, let's explore the topic at hand.

In Daniel Lemire's blog post from August 9, 2025, titled "Why do we even need SIMD instructions?", the author compares a naive C++ character search function (naive_find) and a SIMD-optimized version from his simdutf library, achieving speeds up to 110 GB/s compared to 4 GB/s for the naive version.

However, the post blatantly omitted memchr, a standard C library function from glibc that is often SIMD-optimized and provides similar functionality. That lead to me submitting a pull request adding memchr, which achieved competitive performance (84–175 GB/s).

| Input Size  |memchr (GB/s)| std::find   |  simdutf::find |naive_find|
|-------------|-------------|-------------|----------------|----------|
| 1024        | 105.96      | 4.91        | 28.97          | 3.65     |
| 8192        | 174.75      | 5.04        | 50.29          | 3.78     |
| 65536       | 120.42      | 5.06        | 57.73          | 3.79     |
| 524288      | 101.33      | 5.06        | 58.30          | 3.79     |
| 2097152     | 84.29       | 5.06        | 58.19          | 3.80     |

This oversight reflects a tendency among some C++ developers to prioritize custom or language-specific solutions (e.g., std::find or bespoke SIMD code) over battle-tested C library functions, assuming C's offerings are less sophisticated.

2. Dismissal of C in Performance Discussions

In online forums like Reddit’s r/cpp, a 2024 thread titled "Why still use C in 2024?" saw C++ developers argue that C is outdated due to its lack of modern abstractions like RAII, templates, or smart pointers. One commenter stated:

“C is fine for legacy OS code, but C++’s STL and type safety make it superior for performance-critical applications.”

This ignores that many performance-critical systems, like the Linux kernel or glibc itself, rely on C for its predictable, low-overhead behavior.

The GNU C Library underpins much of libstdc++ (C++’s standard library) on Linux, providing functions like memcpy or strlen that C++ code often wraps.

The assumption that C++’s abstractions inherently outperform C’s lean implementations dismisses C’s role as the backbone of these systems.

3. Advocacy for C++-Exclusive Tooling

At a 2025 C++ conference (CppCon), a talk on build systems emphasized CMake and Bazel for managing complex C++ projects with modules and templates, dismissing Make as “too basic” for modern development.

While C++’s complexity often necessitates advanced build tools, Make remains widely used in C-based projects like the Linux kernel due to its simplicity and flexibility.

This attitude reflects a bias where C++ developers assume their workflows, tailored to C++’s intricacies, are universally superior, overlooking C’s ecosystem where simpler tools suffice for projects with fewer abstractions.

4. Misconceptions About Safety and Modernity

In a Stack Overflow thread from early 2025, a question about string manipulation in C received a top-voted answer suggesting a rewrite in C++ using std::string for “safer and more modern” code.

The answer dismissed C’s char* and functions like strstr as error-prone, ignoring that std::string often relies on C’s strlen or memcpy internally via glibc on Linux.

This reflects a broader trend where C++ developers equate modernity with safety, overlooking that C’s explicit control is deliberate for systems programming, enabling fine-tuned performance in OS kernels and embedded systems.

it's worth noting that this attitude doesn't originate solely within the C++ ecosystem. In fact, much of the elitism directed at C (and by extension, at C++ from other quarters) draws inspiration from the Rust language and its community.

Rust enthusiasts often position their language as the pinnacle of modern systems programming, touting its memory safety guarantees as a revolutionary fix for the ills plaguing "unsafe" languages like C and C++. This narrative fosters an even more pronounced form of elitism: Rust isn't just better; it's safer, more reliable, and essentially foolproof against common exploits.

Yet, this claim is overstated, as Rust's borrow checker and ownership model primarily mitigate a narrow subset of vulnerabilities—mainly data races, dangling pointers, and null dereferences—while leaving the door open to a vast array of other security issues, from logical errors and cryptographic flaws to denial-of-service attacks and supply-chain compromises in crates.

Rust's elitism manifests in community discourse where C++ is derided as "legacy" or "unsafe by design," with Rust positioned as the enlightened alternative that prevents entire classes of bugs at compile time.

For instance, Rust advocates might argue that C++'s manual memory management and lack of built-in concurrency safety make it inherently inferior, echoing the same condescension C++ devs level at C.

However, this superiority complex crumbles under scrutiny. Rust's safety features are powerful but not comprehensive; they don't catch algorithmic mistakes, input validation failures, or runtime panics from unchecked operations. Moreover, Rust's ecosystem—built on crates—introduces its own risks, such as vulnerabilities in third-party libraries that can propagate through dependencies, much like in any other language.

A stark proof of this lies in the CVE database from MITRE, where a search for "Rust" yields over 500 entries as of August 16, 2025 (based on the provided search results). These aren't abstract hypotheticals; they include real-world flaws in popular crates and the standard library itself. For example:

• CVE-2025-5791: Privilege escalation in the 'user' crate due to mishandled group listings, allowing root access under certain conditions.

• CVE-2025-53605: Uncontrolled recursion in the 'protobuf' crate leading to potential stack overflows from untrusted input.

• CVE-2025-53549: SQL injection in the Matrix Rust SDK, exploitable by malicious room members.

• CVE-2025-52484: Malicious prover attacks in RISC Zero's zk-STARKs implementation, affecting zero-knowledge proofs.

• Older entries like CVE-2018-1000810: Integer overflow to buffer overflow in the Rust standard library, fixed in later versions but highlighting early gaps.

These vulnerabilities span buffer overflows, denial-of-service, race conditions, and even man-in-the-middle attacks—issues that Rust's vaunted safety net didn't prevent!

The sheer volume (518 records matching the search) underscores that Rust, like C++ or C, is susceptible to human error, incomplete implementations, and evolving threats. It's not that Rust is unsafe overall; it's that no language is a silver bullet. Claiming otherwise breeds elitism, alienating developers from other ecosystems and ignoring that true security comes from practices like code reviews, fuzzing, and secure design—not just compiler checks.

In the end, this Rust-inspired elitism trickles down to C++ communities, amplifying the cycle of dismissal toward C. Recognizing these parallels could foster more humility across languages: C provides the bedrock, C++ adds abstractions for productivity, and Rust offers innovative safety tools—but none is immune to flaws, as the CVEs attest. If anything, it highlights why interoperability and learning from all three remain essential in systems programming.

5. Preference for C++ Abstractions Over C Interoperability

In a GitHub issue discussion for a high-performance networking library (2025), a contributor proposed replacing C-style socket APIs with a C++ wrapper using std::unique_ptr and std::optional for resource management.

The proposal argued that C’s raw pointers were “archaic” and error-prone, despite the library’s need for cross-language interoperability with C-based systems like POSIX sockets. This push for C++-centric design ignored that C’s simplicity ensures compatibility across diverse platforms, a key reason C remains pervasive in low-level networking and OS development.

Conclusion

These examples highlight a recurring pattern: C++ developers, enamored with their language’s advanced features, sometimes dismiss C as outdated without recognizing its foundational role.

C’s efficiency, portability, and interoperability make it indispensable for operating systems, embedded systems, and even C++’s own standard library.

The oversight of memchr in Lemire’s benchmark is a microcosm of this attitude—favoring C++ solutions while undervaluing C’s optimized, time-tested tools.

Acknowledging C’s strengths doesn’t diminish C++’s power; it fosters a more balanced appreciation of both languages’ roles in modern computing.