[zbentley]

True! But C++ is popular almost entirely because of when (in history/what alternatives existed at the time) and where (on what platforms) it first became available, and how much adoption momentum was created during that era.

I think claiming that C++ is successful because of the unintuitive-behavior-causing compiler behaviors/parts of the spec is an extraordinary claim--if that's what you mean, then I disagree. TFA discusses that many of the most pernicious UB-causing optimizations yield paltry performance gains.

[WalterBright]

If I may pontificate a bit, I was a major contributor to the success of C++.

Back in the 80s, I was looking for a way to enhance my C compiler. I looked at Objective-C and C++. There was a newsgroup for each, and each had about the same amount of traffic. I had to pick one.

Objective-C required a license to implement it. I asked AT&T if I needed a license to implement C++, and could I call it C++. AT&T's lawyer laughed and said feel free to do whatever you want.

So that decided it for me. At the time, C++ did not exist on the PC other than the awkward, nearly unusable cfront (which translated C++ to C). At the time, 90% of programming was done on the PC.

I implemented it. It was the first native C++ compiler for the PC. (It is arguable that it was the first native C++ compiler, depending on whether a gcc beta is considered a release.)

The usage of it exploded. The newsgroup traffic for C++ zoomed upwards, and Objective-C interest fell away. C++ built critical mass because of Zortech C++.

Borland dropped their plans for an OOP language and went for Turbo C++. Microsoft also had a secret OOP C language called C*, which was also abandoned in favor of implementing C++.

And the rest is history!

P.S. cfront on the PC was unusable because it was 1) incredibly slow and 2) did not support near/far pointers which was required for the mixed PC memory models.

P.P.S. Bjarne Stroustrup never mentioned any of this in his book "The Design and Evolution of C++".