home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: fred.net!news
- From: bitmask@bigdog.fred.net (Scott Allen)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java
- Subject: Re: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Wicked ...
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 17:30:05 GMT
- Organization: FredNet - Frederick, Md.
- Message-ID: <3167ed55.8586389@news.fred.net>
- References: <31570B8E.5A12@vmark.com> <31597F8C.167E@rchland.ibm.com> <315FEEFB.2731@ix.netcom.com>
- Reply-To: bitmask@bigdog.fred.net
- NNTP-Posting-Host: bitmask.fred.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.168
-
- Thomas Gagne <tgagne@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
-
- >C++'s learning curve is greater than Smalltalk's because with C++, you're not just learning the language, you
- >have to learn about environmental issues (DLLs, thunking, allthatwierdstufftheydotonamesinthecompiler), etc.
- >A comparatively talented friend of mine each started learning c++ and Smalltalk at the same time (both with C,
- >SQL, Assembly, Powerbuilder, systems-programmer types) and to date, I'm far more productive in Smalltalk than
- >he is in C++ because he's battling with MFC and DLLs and reallywierdnamesthatmaketheresthardtodebug and this
- >isn't a problem in Smalltalk. This may not be true for implementations, however. Your mileage may vary.
- >
-
- Your friend is not just learning C++, he/she is learning Windows
- programming w/ the MFC class library. This is not C++, this is an
- implementation dependent application framework for developing
- for Windows. I do not believe you can make a valid comparison
- here at all.
-
- ---------------------
- Scott Allen
- bitmask@bigdog.fred.net
-