It is said that for a goldfish, each turn around its bowl is a new experience, because it remembers nothing of its previous circuits. You appear to be in the same situation, unaware that each claim you make is contradicted by something you wrote earlier.

Take, for example, "all I ever said about it was this". What you actually did was first make the claim you are now repeating, and then, when I pointed out that doing so completely contradicted your original position, you changed your mind and decided that Eslaught's explanation was irrelevant (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742). Now that I have asked on what grounds you consider it to be irrelevant, you have circled back around to your original position, creating a lose-lose situation in which you have contradicted yourself regardless of what your actual opinion is.

You have reached the point of creating epicycles of contradictions within contradictions, as all this is going on within your larger contradiction of first claiming inordinate complexity of any alternative to your approach and then trying to rewrite that as being merely a claim that there is necessarily some slight increment in complexity in avoiding C++. Let's look again at what you actually wrote:

"Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387

That is not a claim of just slightly more complexity, and the phrase following 'because' is an attempt to offer some sort of explanation for this claim. It is obvious to anyone that you have changed your mind on this, and you have never attempted to offer any justification for the 'because' phrase, but so long as you insist that you have not changed your mind, it is not unreasonable for me to point out that you are still wrong even after one more turn around the bowl.

Furthermore, in attempting to present an example, you are having a problem with logical quantifiers. Putting aside the absurdity of claiming to believe that this sorry dialog is simpler and more straightforward than Eslaught' straight-to-the-point paragraph (the first one in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285), one example cannot establish the general claim you originally stated, and your attempt to do so is simply an error in logic.

I see that my goldfish analogy is not quite complete - your revolutions are getting faster and tighter. This is not so much the trajectory of a goldfish in a bowl as one being flushed down the toilet.