Subject: Re: printing money in C++ and in Common Lisp From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1998/05/08 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * 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_. #:Erik -- Support organized crime: use Microsoft products!