On Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:26:55 AM UTC-5, William Hermans wrote: > > I know the OP seems to have made his/her choice, but I had to comment on > this one statement as it is incorrect, and "noob" eyes are watching I'm > sure. > > *"Java has a large number of forward-looking concepts (e.g. decorators.) >> C++ is "a better C" and can hit the bare metal hardware where Java cannot."* > > > This statement is wrong. Two different tools for two different jobs - > really. C++ is not a "better C" C++ is C++, and C is C. C++ has so much > that is unique from C, and you can not have C++ with out C. Also, C in the > strict sense is procedural, where C++ is object oriented. But as seen all > over the web, anything can be warped to do just about - whatever. >
I was directly quoting Stroustrup's answer to "What is C++" ( http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#what-is) It's a well-known statement and easily traced to him. -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
