Kenneth Culver wrote: > > Because that underlying assumption is false, and I'm making > > fun of it. > > Well, that in itself is wrong. C++ code IS harder to write and write > correctly and effeciently, as I would assume it is for any OO language.
C++ is not an O-O language. It is a language based on C that has O-O constructs which are lacking in C. It enables you to do O-O programming, but it doesn't constraing you to doing O-O programming. Just as Java doesn't constrain you (indeed, a number of Sun APIs break the O-O model by being able to instance unconstructed objects on which you have to post-call an initializer, which is incredibly broken). It's actually easier for humans to use an abstraction for complexity; if it weren't all rental cars would come with manual transmissions and two levers for steering. > I'm not saying it can't be done, but generally speaking based on the Open > source and commercial products I've seen, the ones that are written in C++ > suffer from more bloat and run slower. "A trout is a fish." "Therefore all fish are trout." I think you just failed set theory... ;^). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
