Skip to content

Why C++ Is Not My First Choice

Programming languages are tools, and no single language is the best choice for every project. Selecting the right one requires balancing multiple factors, including performance, complexity, maintainability, safety, development speed, and the nature of the application itself.

Although C++ is a powerful and widely adopted language, it is rarely my first choice for a new project.

This article explains the criteria I use when selecting a programming language and why, depending on the project, I often find C, Rust, Java, or even Python to be more suitable alternatives.

This article reflects my personal opinions and assumes that the reader is familiar with modern programming languages and their fundamental design philosophies.

1. How I Choose a Programming Language

There is no such thing as the perfect programming language. Every language is designed with certain goals and trade-offs in mind, making it suitable for some applications and less suitable for others.

When starting a new project, my goal is not to choose the most popular language or the language with the most features. Instead, I try to select the language that best fits the project's requirements.

For me, two factors carry the greatest weight:

  • Performance — execution speed, memory footprint, and efficient use of system resources.
  • Simplicity — how easy the language is to learn, write, read, debug, and maintain throughout the lifetime of the software.

Performance is undoubtedly important, especially for systems programming and embedded software. However, software is typically written once but maintained for many years. During that time, development cost is dominated by people rather than processors.

A language that is easier to understand allows new developers to become productive more quickly, reduces the likelihood of bugs, simplifies code reviews, and lowers long-term maintenance costs. In many commercial projects, shortening the development cycle and reducing maintenance effort is often more valuable than achieving a small improvement in execution speed.

2. Performance Is My First Criterion

One of the biggest reasons C and C++ have remained popular for decades is their exceptional performance. Both compile directly to native machine code and are capable of producing highly optimized executables.

When evaluating performance, I consider several aspects.

2.1 Execution Speed

Both C and C++ are among the fastest general-purpose programming languages available.

They offer:

  • Native machine code compilation.
  • Minimal runtime overhead.
  • Fine-grained control over memory.
  • Performance that is often close to hand-written assembly.

For most applications, the performance difference between well-written C and C++ is relatively small.

2.2 Memory Footprint

Execution speed is only part of performance.

I also consider:

  • Executable size.
  • RAM usage.
  • Flash memory consumption.
  • Runtime overhead.

In many situations, C programs tend to have a smaller footprint because the language itself is simpler and has fewer runtime features.

2.3 Why Embedded Systems Still Favor C

Embedded systems often have severe resource constraints.

Typical limitations include:

  • Limited Flash memory.
  • Limited RAM.
  • Low CPU frequency.
  • Strict power consumption requirements.

For these reasons, many embedded projects continue to prefer C because it provides:

  • Excellent execution performance.
  • Small executable size.
  • Predictable runtime behavior.
  • Minimal runtime overhead.
  • Complete control over the hardware.

Although modern C++ can certainly be used in embedded software, many projects intentionally avoid features such as:

  • Exceptions.
  • Dynamic memory allocation.
  • Large portions of the standard library.

Doing so reduces runtime overhead and code size, but it also means that many of C++'s advanced features are deliberately left unused.

2.4 My View

However, when performance is my highest priority, I find that C already provides everything I need while remaining smaller, simpler, and better suited to many embedded applications.

Performance, however, is only one part of the decision. The next consideration, and one that often has a greater impact on project success, is simplicity.

3. Simplicity Is Equally Important

Performance is only one aspect of software engineering. Equally important is simplicity, because software is maintained far longer than it is written.

When evaluating a programming language, I also consider the following factors.

3.1 Learning Curve

A language should be easy for developers to learn.

A simpler language means:

  • Faster onboarding of new team members.
  • Less time spent on training.
  • Higher productivity in the early stages of a project.
  • A larger pool of potential developers.

3.2 Readability and Maintainability

Code is read far more often than it is written.

Simple and consistent code is generally:

  • Easier to understand.
  • Easier to debug.
  • Easier to review.
  • Easier to modify.
  • Less likely to introduce bugs during maintenance.

Since software often lives for many years, maintainability is just as important as performance.

3.3 Availability of Skilled Developers

The more complex a language becomes, the fewer developers truly master it.

This can lead to:

  • Longer hiring cycles.
  • Higher salaries for experienced developers.
  • Greater dependence on a small number of experts.
  • Increased project risk when key developers leave.

3.4 Time-to-Market

In many commercial projects, delivering software quickly is more valuable than extracting the last few percent of runtime performance.

For example:

  • Releasing a product one month earlier may generate significant business value.
  • A simpler codebase allows faster development and testing.
  • Faster deployment often outweighs small performance improvements.

In other words:

The cost of developer time is often much greater than the cost of CPU time.

3.5 Simplicity Is a Long-Term Investment

A simpler language benefits the entire lifetime of a project.

It typically results in:

  • Lower development cost.
  • Lower maintenance cost.
  • Better code consistency.
  • Faster onboarding.
  • Easier knowledge transfer.
  • Reduced technical debt.

For these reasons, I consider simplicity to be just as important as performance when selecting a programming language.

Unfortunately, simplicity is one area where modern C++ has become increasingly difficult to justify.

4. Where C++ Loses Me

C++ has evolved tremendously since its introduction. While many of its features solve real problems, I believe the language has accumulated complexity faster than most developers can realistically absorb.

The following are some of the reasons C++ is rarely my first choice for a new project.

4.1 Language Complexity

Modern C++ is no longer a small language.

With every new standard (C++11, C++14, C++17, C++20, C++23, and beyond), more features continue to be introduced. Individually, many of these features are useful, but collectively they make the language increasingly difficult to learn and master.

As a result:

  • The learning curve becomes steeper.
  • New developers require more training.
  • Finding experienced C++ developers becomes more difficult.
  • Code reviews become more challenging because reviewers must understand many advanced language features.

4.2 Multiple Inheritance

Multiple inheritance remains one of the most controversial features of C++.

While it enables certain design patterns, it also introduces additional complexity, such as the well-known Diamond Problem.

Interestingly, many successful languages chose different approaches.

  • Java does not support multiple inheritance of classes.
  • C# also avoids it.
  • Python supports it, but many developers use it sparingly.

Whether the feature is worthwhile remains a matter of debate.

4.3 Operator Overloading

Operator overloading was intended to make user-defined types behave like built-in types.

For mathematical libraries, this can improve readability.

However, in many application and embedded projects, I find it has the opposite effect.

For example:

result = vector1.add(vector2);

is, in my opinion, more explicit than:

result = vector1 + vector2;

The first clearly indicates that a member function is being called. The second requires the reader to discover what the overloaded + operator actually does.

4.4 Too Many Ways to Solve the Same Problem

One of C++'s greatest strengths is also one of its greatest weaknesses.

There are often multiple ways to accomplish the same task.

For example, developers may choose between:

  • Raw pointers
  • Smart pointers
  • References
  • Templates
  • Lambdas
  • Functors
  • Macros
  • Traditional loops
  • STL algorithms
  • Coroutines

While flexibility is valuable, it can also reduce consistency across a large codebase.

4.5 Syntax Complexity

Compared to languages such as Java, C++ syntax is considerably more complicated.

Templates, operator overloading, move semantics, perfect forwarding, and other advanced language constructs can make otherwise straightforward code difficult to read.

Personally, I prefer languages with simpler and more predictable syntax.

None of these points imply that C++ is a poor language. They simply explain why, when complexity becomes an important factor, I often find other languages to be more attractive choices.

5. If Performance Is Not the Top Priority

Not every software project demands maximum performance. In many cases, development speed, maintainability, safety, and ecosystem support are more important than squeezing out the last few percent of execution speed.

When performance is no longer my highest priority, I usually consider other languages before C++.

5.1 Java

For enterprise and backend applications, Java remains one of my preferred choices.

Some of the reasons include:

  • Simple and consistent syntax.
  • Excellent standard library.
  • Rich ecosystem of frameworks and tools.
  • Automatic memory management.
  • Large pool of experienced developers.
  • Easier onboarding for new team members.

Although Java cannot match the raw performance of C or C++, modern JVM implementations provide more than enough performance for many business applications.

5.2 Rust

For systems programming, Rust has become a compelling alternative.

It offers:

  • Performance comparable to C and C++.
  • Strong memory safety guarantees.
  • Modern language design.
  • Active and growing ecosystem.
  • Elimination of many common memory-related bugs.

Rust certainly has its own learning curve, but if I am willing to invest time in mastering a modern systems language, I find Rust to be a stronger long-term investment than C++ for many new projects.

5.3 Python

For scripting, automation, rapid prototyping, and many data-oriented applications, Python is difficult to ignore.

Its strengths include:

  • Extremely fast development.
  • Clear and readable syntax.
  • Vast collection of third-party libraries.
  • Excellent community support.

Although Python is significantly slower than compiled languages, execution speed is often not the bottleneck for these types of applications.

5.4 Choosing the Right Tool

Every language has strengths and weaknesses.

My typical decision process is relatively simple:

  • Need maximum performance and minimal footprint? → C
  • Need systems programming with stronger safety guarantees? → Rust
  • Building enterprise or backend software? → Java
  • Need rapid development or automation? → Python

Given these choices, I find that C++ is no longer my default option for many new projects.

That does not mean C++ is obsolete or ineffective—it simply means that, for my priorities, another language is often a better fit.

6. When I Would Still Choose C++

Despite my reservations, there are situations where C++ remains the right tool for the job. Choosing a programming language should always be driven by the project's requirements rather than personal preference.

The following are situations where I would seriously consider using C++.

6.1 Existing Codebases

Many successful software products have been developed in C++ over several decades.

If a project already has a mature C++ codebase, rewriting it in another language is usually neither practical nor cost-effective.

In such cases, continuing with C++ offers several advantages:

  • Reuse of existing code.
  • Lower migration cost.
  • Reduced project risk.
  • Better compatibility with existing components.

6.2 Established Ecosystems

Some industries have built extensive ecosystems around C++.

Examples include:

  • Game engines.
  • Computer graphics.
  • CAD/CAM software.
  • Scientific computing.
  • High-performance simulation.

These domains often provide mature libraries and frameworks that would be difficult to replace.

6.3 Team Expertise

The best programming language is often the one your team already knows well.

If a development team consists primarily of experienced C++ engineers, then choosing C++ may lead to:

  • Faster development.
  • Better code quality.
  • Fewer implementation mistakes.
  • Lower training costs.

A highly skilled C++ team will almost always outperform an inexperienced team using a "better" language.

6.4 Project Requirements

Some projects genuinely benefit from features unique to C++.

For example:

  • Extensive use of object-oriented design.
  • Generic programming with templates.
  • Integration with existing C++ libraries.
  • Applications requiring zero-cost abstractions.

When these features provide clear advantages, C++ can be an excellent choice.

6.5 My Position

C++ has powered some of the world's most successful software systems and continues to evolve.

However, when I evaluate a new project based on the factors discussed in this article—performance, simplicity, maintainability, development cost, and available alternatives—I often find myself choosing another language instead.

Ultimately, selecting the right programming language is about making the best engineering decision for the problem at hand, not about proving that one language is universally superior.

7. Conclusion

There is no perfect programming language. Every language represents a different set of design trade-offs, and choosing the right one depends on the goals of the project rather than personal preference.

When selecting a programming language, I primarily evaluate two factors:

  • Performance
  • Simplicity

If maximum performance, minimal memory footprint, and direct hardware control are the primary objectives, C remains my preferred choice.

If performance can be traded for improved safety, developer productivity, or a richer ecosystem, I am more inclined to consider languages such as:

  • Rust
  • Java
  • Python

This leaves C++ in a position where it is not the obvious choice for many of my new projects.

My reasons can be summarized as follows:

  • C already satisfies my performance requirements for systems and embedded programming.
  • Modern C++ has grown significantly in size and complexity.
  • Simplicity reduces development time, maintenance cost, and onboarding effort.
  • In many projects, developer productivity is more valuable than extracting the last few percent of runtime performance.
  • Modern alternatives often provide a better balance between performance, safety, and ease of development.

This does not mean C++ is a poor language. It has powered countless successful products and remains an excellent choice in many domains, particularly where existing ecosystems, libraries, or experienced development teams already exist.

However, if I were starting a new project today, I would not choose C++ by default. Instead, I would first evaluate the project's requirements and then select the language that provides the best balance between performance, simplicity, maintainability, and long-term productivity.

Ultimately, the goal of software engineering is not to use the most powerful language; it is to deliver reliable, maintainable software using the most appropriate tool for the job.