Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Try to use a similar construct in a more elaborate OO-language (like Java, C#, > etc.) and you will get an error like:
Just as a point of reference, Java and C# are not "more elaborate" object systems. For Java at least being *less* elaborate was an explicit design goal. The designers thought C++ had too many features and gave programmers too much rope to hang themselves. They thought by removing major OO features that confuse people the resulting language would be 90% as functional with 10% of the problems. If you want a *more* elaborate OO language than C++ you would have to go to, say, Common Lisp. But I doubt it would support your argument. Common Lisp goes pretty far out of its way to make sure you can do whatever you dream of under the sun. In any case it would make a weak argument given the slim portion of programmers that know Common Lisp. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
