Subject: Re: printing money in C++ and in Common Lisp
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1998/05/08
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Nathan Myers
| The article (really a column) was one of a series.  The columnist 
| happens to have a strong financial interest in promoting a non-standard 
| subset of the library.  The resulting bias is evident.  Don't be *too* 
| embarrassed at having been taken in.  You have plenty of company.

  pardon me for trying to get through some of your gloating, but you seem
  to have missed my point while you've been dead set on attacking me, and
  so much so that you fail to appreciate that what you keep telling me is
  _supporting_ my case: C++ is the choice of _bad_people_.

  I don't know what it was that you read in my article, but I think you've
  been had if you think it was a critique of the best of the brilliant
  designs that C++ could bring to the world, of "how to succeed" or
  somesuch.  the article stood out because it's the kind of thing that C++
  people do with their language.  I couldn't care less _why_ they do it.

  what is it that you believe I believed which would have meant I was taken
  in?  was it, like, _ironic_, or something?  is this a _joke_ on C++ by
  P.J.Plauger, and I didn't get it, is that it?  given a financial interest
  (or so you say), doesn't that just make him a fraud?  do you think _I_
  would spring for The Standard C++ Library because of this?

  (hm, I guess I _was_ taken in once by P.J.Plauger if this is your line of
  reasoning: I have a copy of "The Standard C Library", bought in good
  faith before I had your valuable input on his and your character, but I
  have never been so disappointed in any book on software.  yes, I _did_
  have that waste of ink and paper in mind when I read the article.)

  P. J. Plauger's code is _fantastically_ ugly.  (the lack of a consistent
  bracing style irks me, too.)  the inclusion of this crap in anything
  called "the Standard C++ Library" is a royal disgrace, whether it be his
  book or the standard is utterly irreleveant.  at issue is that the
  solution is _mind-numbingly_ stupid, typical of C++ design, regardless of
  whether he made an effort to obfuscate, and regardless of whether it was
  intended as parody on the parody of object-oriented programming.

  now, what _more_ could _possibly_ be added to make the C++ world look
  even _worse_?  oh, yes, the columnist has a strong financial interest in
  promoting a _non_-standard subset of the Standard C++ Library!  thank
  you, Nathan.  that really helped.  you've just made the article virtually
  _prove_ my point that C++ is _only_ suited for unethical programmers.

  BTW, please stop sending your infantile flames by mail, Nathan.  you've
  made your point, such as it is.  next time, try _communication skills_.

  Support organized crime: use Microsoft products!