Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:53:05 -0600 From: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> To: "David O'Brien" <devnull@NUXI.com> Cc: bts@babbleon.org, Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C vs C++ Message-ID: <20020306215305.A64016@sheol.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20020306191709.A55297@dragon.nuxi.com>; from devnull@NUXI.com on Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:17:09PM -0800 References: <LAW2-F145zHHwkqnpib00016ada_hotmail.com@ns.sol.net> <20020305164731.530B5BA03_i8k.babbleon.org@ns.sol.net> <200203061219.g26CJEJ61813@sheol.localdomain> <20020306191709.A55297@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 06, at 07:17 PM, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:19:14AM -0600, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > > > > They should have left well enough alone, and advocated languages that > > were/are OOPL by concept as well as design. > > *sigh* IF you say that then you really aren't thinking at at all. > Why isn't Eiffel (one of those pure OOL's) used more? BECAUSE IT ISN'T > C. Got it? No one is willing to learn a new language. How much > bitching do we get because CVSup is written in Modula-3? It is a > type-safer language than C. It has some OO-like constructs and its > threading model and GUI lib allow JDP to quickly create a really nice > application. But all the benefits of Modula-3 are lost on the "I only do > C" crowd that is demanding CVSup be rewritten. First, you're ascribing me to a group I don't belong. While I don't know Eiffel, or Lisp, or Modula, Snobol, etc., I don't demean them, nor do I bitch about such-and-such being written with them (well, not publicly, anyway). Many's the time I've wanted to modify a program written in a language I didn't/don't know, and learned enough of it to re-write it in a language I do know, just to do the changes I wanted. Second, you're not addressing my comments at all. I maintain that the creators of C++ should have either created yet another OOPL, or advocated any of the existing ones. Taking a procedural language, particularly one as accepted and popular as C, and wreaking havoc on it (IMHO) to produce another, was a gross mis-step. > Thus to repeat -- C++ was built on C SO IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED. By whom? C programmers? If you're even half-right, their logic was flawed - the general concensus that I'm aware of is that most C folk think little of C++. I won't address the opinions of PHBs who didn't get much further than flow-charts, or the C++ folk who hadn't experience with C when they learned C++, if either of those groups are the people you're writing of. > > I'll go away now. > > thank you. Snideness doesn't get you anything but. Dave Don't mess with me, I'm not a zealot. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020306215305.A64016>