Subject: Re: wretched C++ (Was: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/04/29 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Andrew Koenig | So I can summarize the discussion this way: | | X: C++ is lousy because foo. | | Y: Foo is true of C, and will be true of any language descended from C. | | X: But foo is bad in C++ and not in C, and C++ has bar and baz, | and yer mother wears army shoes! | | Which is why I claim that no direct, rational response is possible. let's make it: X: C++ is lousy because of FOO. Y: FOO/n is true of C, etc X: but n is a huge number! C++ _multiplies_ most weaknesses of C by this huge number, and does very little to alleviate any others. Y: no direct, rational response is possible. example from real life: X: junk food is lousy because of the fat and colesterol. Y: but your body needs fat and colesterol, and any food prepared for human beings will have to contain fat and colesterol. X: don't you get it? it's an issue of the _amount_ of fat and colesterol. Y: no direct, rational response is possible. somehow, Andrew Koenig reminds me of the "nutrition guides" I found prominently displayed at a MacDonald's some time ago. however, I may actually agree with him. no direct, rational is possible when someone is so consistently excellent at dogding the issues. #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?