>>66
I'll be more neutral now.
About previous stablished knowledge: it's necessary, because human knowledge won't move if we reinvent the wheel everytime. But we need to be sure if these “previous well-stablished” knowledge is still valid. Maybe it's just that they were completely okay
when they were stated.
Look at C, it is from a time where sitting down reading pages of processor instructions were quite common between programmers. So, at least for them, reading C code it's a piece of cake, because it's almost a bunch of macros to output assembly code. Portability? Libraries? The architectures were growing so fast that people hadn't time even to write compilers before the successors come. C of course were a bless on such systems.
Over the 1990s, the computing world changed a lot, main memory grew up to the point that virtual memory is almost useless for most people now [almost!]. Computing power grew up so fast... a smartphone today is more powerful than the 80s top supercomputer (Cray Y-MP I guess). These practical restrictions that made C and C++ popular doesn't make much sense today. And for newcomers, which didn't live back then, talking about it doesn't make sense
when they can't even use 100% of their processor just because
more than 80% of their code it's just business logic, structured data or fancy UIs.