That's an objectively correct statement, but I don't see how it makes sense as a response to my comment, as I'm advocating to use the more advanced feature-rich tool over the compiler-specific-hacks one.
> I don't see how it makes sense as a response to my comment
Your comment started out with "just."
As if there are never any compelling reasons to want to make existing C code better.
But instead of taking that as an opportunity to reflect on when various tools might be appropriate,
> as I'm advocating to use the more advanced feature-rich tool over the compiler-specific-hacks one.
You've simply doubled down.
If you're advocating switching languages, then there's no reason to stop at C++. It's more common to propose just converting the universe to Rust, but assembly also enjoys the possibility of being fairly easy to drop in on an existing C project.