On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:59:48 -0500, Greg A. Woods sent 2.8K bytes: > [ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 01:19:22 (-0800), Thomas S. Urban wrote: ] <snip> > > I don't really have time to get into a detailed discussion, and > certainly not in this forum! ;-)
You don't really have time to get into it - that's funny. > I recommend you read the published articles, papers, and such that > describe problems with C++ -- for the most part they've only confirmed > what I knew intuitively from studying the language directly. > > Alan Kay's comment about OO vs. C++ sums it all up rather nicely though. I've read quite a bit about C++, problems, design, use, etc. I'll gladly read more papers and analysis on the subject (ref or URL?). Cute one liner quotes don't really qualify in my book. <snip> > > There are a couple features, like operator overloading, that > > I think would have been better left out of the langauge, but even those > > can be fine if used with restraint. > > You see that's a very perfect example of a fundamental flaw with the > very idea of a language like C++ (or Java or C# or any other attempt to > describe a half-baked Modula-style language as "object oriented"). > Operator overloading should not be an issue -- it must be a very natural > and inherent part of any OO language. Look at the very invention of the > concept in Smalltalk to see why. There are many things you can do in C that are a bad idea. The same applies to other langauges I'm familiar with. You can effectively use C++ without operator overloading except in the case when you want to do generic programming with classes that behave similarly to native types. Sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes not. > > In short, C++ is a good langauge if your developers know how to use it, > > Mabye -- but y'all would be much more productive and useful to society > if you'd try to forget C++ and everything you know about it (right after > you've re-written all your code in some more cost effective language, of > course!). Pttfth. Maybe you'd be more useful to society if you'd stop trying to brow-beat the people on the CVS list into your stubborn view of the world? > > > If you can't justify using C for a project (on language merits alone) > > > then C++ is right out of the running from the get go! > > > > That is silly. What if you could justify C, except you need dynamic > > binding too? Then could you justify C++? What about you need all the > > features of C, with generic programming as well? Then is C++ back in > > the running? > > "dynamic binding" isn't a feature you could ever possibly decide on > needing up front for any kind of project you'd ever even get close to > justifying C for! Get real! You're wrong. Read what I wrote again. Projects I am working on satisfy the description I gave. Then again, I'm not real, but I'm working on it. -- What's done to children, they will do to society. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
