>>68
It's not about 'stack'.
C doesn't have a stack. It is required by the function that it knows the number of arguments.
So such code is possible:
int f(size_t argnum, ...)
It really has nothing to do with a 'stack'. You either talk about a specific machine or the ISO standard.
> Then it will confuse you as to why variables that hold objects are always the value of that object.
Do you mean... references?
> C++ fails at the model its most used for in the most far reacing and basic way.
C++ indeed fails for its size and complexity.
OOP fails for its design. OOP FAILS HARD.