Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:15:33 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@alpha.yumyumyum.org> Cc: "Steve B." <steveb99@earthlink.net>, "Eugene L. Vorokov" <vel@bugz.infotecs.ru>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: C vs C++ Message-ID: <3C856DB5.E5F14F62@mindspring.com> References: <20020305164151.T5854-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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?3C856DB5.E5F14F62>