Since we are in pedant&#x27;s corner, note that I very carefully used past tense.  Yes it originally was a design goal.<p>Source: The Design and Evolution of C++, by Bjarne Stroustrup.  (I don&#x27;t know which printing I have.)  Page 120, Section 4.5 &quot;No gratuitous incompatibilities with C&quot;.  It explains my original claim, and also why it couldn&#x27;t be 100% compatible due to some other C++ desirables (eg better type safety).  Partial quote:<p>&quot;C++ doesn&#x27;t aim at 100% compatibility with C because that would have compromised the aims of type safety and support for design.  However, where these aims are not interfered with incompatibilities are avoided  - even at the cost of inelegance.  In most cases, C incompatibilities have been accepted only when a C rule left a gaping hole in the type system.&quot;