Daniel Dilts wrote: > Yes, additional methods might be convenient, but they certainly aren't > so inconvenient as to make them essential. > > I saw a quote the other day, "Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the > semicolon." Perhaps I was ruined at a young age by the Java collections framework (all the more so with generics), but I'd have to agree with Dave. I know STL is uber powerful, but so is assembly. If you really want to get down to it, everything you can do in C++ can be done in assembly; it's just a bunch of syntactic sugar.
I agree some languages add so much natural and artificial sweetener it'd make any programmer diabetic (*cough* Perl *cough*), but I wouldn't mind some sweet additions to the STL (like comprehensible compiler errors for one) to make it more palatable. One of my past mentors wisely said, "Software isn't written for computers; it's written for people." A computer doesn't care about your syntax or semantics, but a mad maintainer might hunt you down and fdisk your brain. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go eat those sand-paper bran muffins my wife keeps saying are good for my colon. ;-Daniel -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
