home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: ix.netcom.com!news
- From: giuliano@ix.netcom.com(Giuliano Carlini)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C++ and C
- Date: 8 Apr 1996 07:19:08 GMT
- Organization: Netcom
- Message-ID: <4kaelc$aih@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
- References: <4k7k6q$euv@gold.skyinternet.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: lbx-ca6-22.ix.netcom.com
- X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Apr 08 2:19:08 AM CDT 1996
-
- In <4k7k6q$euv@gold.skyinternet.com> fwu@gold.skyinternet.com (Felix
- Wu) writes:
- >
- >Do you think C++ is a monster since it's compatible with C?? which
- >is neither a good object-oriented language nor a replacement for C??
-
- C++ (and C) are monstrosities. For the true believers out there: yes,
- C++ is better than C, and yes C++ is better than some even uglier
- languages. But so what. C++ is still a nightmare. Why, is it so bad you
- ask. The syntax is a mess to understand. The semantics are even worse.
- Rather than being built out of a small number of orthogonal and easy to
- understand primitives, it is built from a large number of difficult to
- understand components with unusual interactions between them. Rather
- than one straight forward way to do something, there are usually a half
- dozen ways to do it. Which is best depends on your requirements. If
- your initial requirements lead you to choose one, later changes may
- make your initial choice painful.
-
- There are two reasons for knowing it. It has the largest share of the
- market, thereby making it easier to get work. It is available for
- nearly every platform, so that your program has a chance of being
- portable. Not a great chance, but some chance none the less.
-
- giuliano
-
-