That’s a big assumption to make. I think it’s valid to say that C++ is complex and more difficult to understand than other compiled languages without resorting to ad hominem arguments.
C++ is easy to understand when you understand the mental model its abstractions target.
(In some sense you're right: the mental model of Haskell is mathematical, while the mental model of C++ is some sort of multi-core "Harvard architecture" machine. While it's true that math is a lot easier for the human brain to grasp, this isn't really related to language complexity per se.)
(and from what I understand "Stockholm syndrome" is not classified as a medical condition because it's questioned if it actually exists as thing that can be usefully delineated, not because it wouldn't qualify)
I'm certainly not claiming "C++ is perfect and everything else is useless" or "Rust doesn't stand a chance", but this "there has to be something wrong with you if you use it/ever consider it more suitable" is seriously annoying, and disappointing to see as the top comment here (even if it's not the worst pro-rust denigration of C++-users I've seen). And is damaging the chances Rust et al have in these spaces.
>Suggesting everyone using C++ isn't capable of properly evaluating it (which the comment author can clearly tell from the outside, for every use case) is "not derogatory"?
I see it more as "I wonder if they have given other languages a chance?". There's definitely a lot of C++ devs who aren't giving for example Rust a try, and don't see the negatives of C++ because they haven't experienced anything else lately.
If anything, it was derogatory towards C++, not the devs.
And the answer to the question "I wonder if any C++ developer has ever given other languages a chance" is also a quite obviously "yes" (remember, the claim was about "all"), not "no, they never have".