Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:50:29 +0000 From: Daniela <dgw@liwest.at> To: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com> Cc: Miles Lubin <miles@lubin.us> Subject: Re: Beginning C++ in FreeBSD Message-ID: <200404171050.29467.dgw@liwest.at> In-Reply-To: <4BA66CA5-8FF0-11D8-BD38-000A95EFF4CA@foolishgames.com> References: <200404151110.i3FBAaoo048373@adsl-68-76-19-75.dsl.klmzmi.ameritech.net> <200404162234.05133.dgw@liwest.at> <4BA66CA5-8FF0-11D8-BD38-000A95EFF4CA@foolishgames.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 16 April 2004 21:52, Lucas Holt wrote: > > Why would one need C++ if it's converted to C anyway? > > C++ is useful for programmers that believe in object oriented > methodologies. Some things are easier to do in C++ as well. It all > depends on the programmer. > > You seem to favor assembly languages. I've found that many people into > assembly never seem to get OO and therefore languages like C++ and Java > make no sense to them. Assembly *can be* fast but its not portable. > C was created to make unix portable. C++ was created to add OO > features to C. (as was objective c) I do program in C++ quite often and it does make sense to me. I know seven programming languages and which one I use depends on the program, as I find them all easy. OO languages can be optimized differently than non-OO languages, and when you translate one language into another, this advantage gets lost. I would rather say, assembly is fast and can be portable, if it's done properly. Yes, it is an unforgiving language, but I think beginning programmers need exactly that. Daniela
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404171050.29467.dgw>