Any useful language is a freaking enormous ball of mud. Bjarne said: there are only two kinds of languages - the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.
Non-zero, I'm sure, but I bet single-digit percentages, tops. Except that last one, which I'd put money on sub-1%.
What are the odds that C++, as a fairly extreme outlier, is actually closer to optimal for the general purpose tasks it is used for than all the other languages?
I don't like or use Java, and it isn't perfect by any means. My point is just how far I didn't have to go down the list of "mainstream languages" before your claim is completely false. C++ is an outlier.
C also has the memory leaking issue, but the rest is false as well. Though in the memory model case it's by virtue of not having one.
And that's sticking with a very generous-for-you interpretation of "mainstream". If I'm allowed to dip down to Python or something you're even worse off.
Naturally, that minimalism brings its own set of issues and complaints. But the point is, you don't need to be as much of a ball of mud as C++ in order to be useful or successful. I think a lot of language partisans, and C++ partisans in particular, point to Stroustrup's quote as an excuse for their language's warts. It's true that no language can ever be perfect, but that doesn't mean that all complaints are without merit and unworthy of attention and consideration.