Subject: Re: wretched C++ (Was: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1997/04/29
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c++
Message-ID: <>

* 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

    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.

if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?