From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Mar 5 19: 3:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com (fe4.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0D337B404 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:03:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from i8k.babbleon.org ([66.57.85.154]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:02:22 -0500 Received: by i8k.babbleon.org (Postfix, from userid 111) id 01E6ABA03; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:01:45 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Brian T.Schellenberger To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), Kenneth Culver Subject: Re: C vs C++ Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:01:45 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] Cc: Terry Lambert , "Steve B." , "Eugene L. Vorokov" , References: <3C8529DA.FA8ABCE@mindspring.com> <20020305164151.T5854-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> <15493.24457.986109.726909@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <15493.24457.986109.726909@caddis.yogotech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20020306030145.01E6ABA03@i8k.babbleon.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday 05 March 2002 07:15 pm, Nate Williams wrote: > [ moved to -chat ] > > > > 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. > > Not so. Having done C professionally for umpteen years, C++ for a > little less than umpteen years, and Java for 4, I can say w/out > reservation that C++ sucks. OOP programming doesn't *have* to be hard. > C++ puts too many roadblocks in your way. Amen to that. > It not just because Java is newer that it's displacing C++ as the > primary development language. It's because C++ as a language is *NOT* > well-designed (design my commitee). C is becoming more and more like > C++ in this regard. (And before Terry starts whining about strongly > typed languages, let me state that IMO strongly typed languages are a > good thing, since they allow you to verify your code at *COMPILE* time, > vs. at runtime.) Actually the problem isn't that it's designed by committee. The problem is that it's UNdesigned--and that is *deliberate*. Read Stoustup (sp?)--he explicitly *rejected* the idea of having a philosophy of the language--he sees it as limiting the languages utility. This, naturally, leads to the PL/I of the C family--an unholy mess of a lanaguage. I was working on a debugger and we were exploring C++ and we kept having meetings where we would discover another revelation about C++ and our jaws would drop and go you can do WHAT??? Are they INSANE???? It's really awful. Objective C, for exmaple, is a much better C-based OO language I wouldn't recommend C++ to anybody for anything myself. -- Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . bts@wnt.sas.com (work) Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . bts@babbleon.org (personal) ME --> http://www.babbleon.org http://www.eff.org <-- GOOD GUYS --> http://www.programming-freedom.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message