Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:19:14 -0600 (CST) From: hawkeyd@visi.com (D J Hawkey Jr) To: bts@babbleon.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C vs C++ Message-ID: <200203061219.g26CJEJ61813@sheol.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20020305164731.530B5BA03_i8k.babbleon.org@ns.sol.net> References: <LAW2-F145zHHwkqnpib00016ada_hotmail.com@ns.sol.net> <20020305164731.530B5BA03_i8k.babbleon.org@ns.sol.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20020305164731.530B5BA03_i8k.babbleon.org@ns.sol.net>, bts@babbleon.org writes: > On Tuesday 05 March 2002 11:28 am, Kenneth Mays wrote: > > [SNIP] > > Besides, it's not C++ that provides whatever questionable benefits it > provides; it's OO methodology which can come in handy, and there are more > elegant OO solutions than C++ around. Hear, Hear! In my small, insignificant opinion, I thought the creators of C++ were cracked for taking a small, concise, procedural, and beautiful, language like C and obfuscating (read: "corrupting") it with all that overloading stuff. Most of the class stuff can be implemented in C, though perhaps not as "transparently". They should have left well enough alone, and advocated languages that were/are OOPL by concept as well as design. I'll go away now. Dave -- Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203061219.g26CJEJ61813>