This is the argument that comes up every time a C vs. C++ discussion occurs. It is faulty, because it assumes a false premise -- that the C and C++ implementations will be largely of the same complexity.
Unfortunately, in the C implementation of anything beyond a trivial application with no large-scale data structures, the majority of the "reasoning" being done will revolve around basic data structure implementations! The very containers, memory allocation structures, and such that require virtually NO reasoning in the C++ implementation, because they are proven.
After you've implemented the same basic structures again, and again for the hundredth time in large-scale C programs, C++ is a breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, many people approach C++ before they have many miles on their programming chassis; this is like handing an infant a revolver. Bad things are likely to happen.
This is not a problem with the revolver; it is a parenting issue. Don't let a junior programmer use a language requiring significant reasoning skills, before they have earned the right -- by developing those skills, repeatedly implementing the very structures they'll be accessing in the C++ implementation!
We wouldn't let a first-year civil engineering student develop a bridge design, without first gaining many, many years of experience developing -- and failing -- on much simpler designs. Why should we expect wide-spread success, allowing junior programmers access to a spectacularly powerful and complex programming tool?
Unfortunately, in the C implementation of anything beyond a trivial application with no large-scale data structures, the majority of the "reasoning" being done will revolve around basic data structure implementations! The very containers, memory allocation structures, and such that require virtually NO reasoning in the C++ implementation, because they are proven.
After you've implemented the same basic structures again, and again for the hundredth time in large-scale C programs, C++ is a breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, many people approach C++ before they have many miles on their programming chassis; this is like handing an infant a revolver. Bad things are likely to happen.
This is not a problem with the revolver; it is a parenting issue. Don't let a junior programmer use a language requiring significant reasoning skills, before they have earned the right -- by developing those skills, repeatedly implementing the very structures they'll be accessing in the C++ implementation!
We wouldn't let a first-year civil engineering student develop a bridge design, without first gaining many, many years of experience developing -- and failing -- on much simpler designs. Why should we expect wide-spread success, allowing junior programmers access to a spectacularly powerful and complex programming tool?