Most of the introduction is inaccurate. C++ does its best to reintegrate all new features of C into C++ (not that C has anything much going on since 1999), and a lot of efforts are made to unify the languages. The only reason they're not unified is because there are a few irreductibles that are against it, but as written in the article, even Microsoft is in favour of just having C++ and no C.
The creator of C++ himself is saying C++ is a better C and his goal was for C to cease to be and be replaced. The reasons C is not a strict subset of C++ is because some features of C are outrightly dangerous and were changed in C++ for good reason.
Most of the new features of C these days are actually backported from C++, such as atomics.
Also the whole thing about how in C you should think in terms of modules rather than classes also applies to C++. OOP remains a bad paradigm regardless of the language.
And funnily enough some of the biggest C frameworks are dedicated to providing OOP in C (e.g. glib).
The creator of C++ himself is saying C++ is a better C and his goal was for C to cease to be and be replaced. The reasons C is not a strict subset of C++ is because some features of C are outrightly dangerous and were changed in C++ for good reason.
Most of the new features of C these days are actually backported from C++, such as atomics.
Also the whole thing about how in C you should think in terms of modules rather than classes also applies to C++. OOP remains a bad paradigm regardless of the language. And funnily enough some of the biggest C frameworks are dedicated to providing OOP in C (e.g. glib).