>>8
Lol. Go back to sun.com; Java was designed to be a not-particularly-high-level language for embedded applications; a purpose which it failed utterly, and then it was remarketed as a half-assed web monster which Sun paid magazines to convince retarded managers to adopt and succeeded.
It's antipedagogic because you can't teach piano by playing Beethoven's music in the first day. OO is an abstraction that should be learnt afterwards. On top of that, Java has one of the worst OO implementations ever, and if you think otherwise you clearly haven't learnt a decent OO language yourself and are not qualified to talk in this discussion.
Though I suspect you were a troll. If so, props.
>>9
Because C++ is made of suck and complex, so you end up using C++--, and the problem comes when you work with other people (as in, for most real stuff) and your definition of C++-- naturally differs from others'. Many ways to do it considered harmful. Plus some of its features bite.