home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: rain.fr!world-net!usenet
- From: Frederic LACHASSE <lachass@worldnet.fr>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Why C++/G++/?++
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 16:17:22 +0000
- Organization: World-Net information exchange, Internet provider.
- Message-ID: <VA.0000000e.00075f16@fred>
- References: <DLFosu.F6s@Federal.Unisys.COM>
- Reply-To: lachass@worldnet.fr
- NNTP-Posting-Host: client51.sct.fr
- X-Newsreader: Virtual Access by Ashmount Research Ltd, http://www.ashmount.com
-
- Clarence,
-
- I'm a C++ programmer and have never used Ada, but I'm sure that Ada is
- more reliable, portable, readable, testable, maintainable than C++, even
- if I find the upcoming standard very good. Actually, C++ would never
- reach such high standard, given its C heritage.
-
- So why use C++ ?
-
- The main strength (and also main flaw) of C++ is its C heritage. That
- gives C++ two things: a natural way to use C libraries (and C has
- probably the richest sets of libraries of all computer languages) and a
- natural way to be used instead of C.
-
- That opens great possibilities to C++: make C++ classes from C
- libraries, progressive re-writing of big C applications like operating
- systems, word processors, electronic sheets, database engine,
- communication gateways, most compilers and also low-level stuff like
- device drivers. This explains the success of C++ (as it is far better
- than C) and this also accounts for more available re-usable C++
- commercial classes to help develop applications than Ada libraries (I
- don't know how they are called: classes? modules? units?).
-
- My conclusion: Ada is the best language, C++ the more usable. (Well, if
- you judge a language by the amount of programs, COBOL would be the best)
-
- Frederic LACHASSE (ECP 86)
- CompuServe: 100530,2005
- Internet: lachass@worldnet.fr
-
-