home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jimad
- From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock)
- Subject: Re: New operators wish list
- Message-ID: <1992Jul27.193157.6623@microsoft.com>
- Date: 27 Jul 92 19:31:57 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <658@manutius.UUCP> <l6smdpINNjmc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <l6smdpINNjmc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
- |Those people that I know who dislike C++, dislike it because they
- |believe it contains too many features (that cannot now be removed).
-
- I am one of the people who thinks C++ has too many "features" --
- [other people including myself would say "bugs"]
-
- However, some of the these features/bugs CAN be successfully removed.
-
- One of the "features" that I have formally proposed be removed is the
- special case language preventing a few operators from being overloaded.
- Its much easier to teach, program, remember, the language etc, if there
- isn't a plethora of special case restrictions in the language.
-
- If the language is implemented in an "orthogonal" manner [to the greatest
- extent possible] then people can simply learn general rules, they do not
- have to remember all these special cases.
-
- People keep trying to argue against making the language orthogonal, people
- keep arguing that I need to "prove" the benefits of trying to make the
- langauge orthogonal. This continues to amaze me. Rather, I would expect
- that a reasonable group of people would insist that anyone who wants to
- defend special cases in the language would be required to show a great
- burden of proof. Each of those special cases represents an additional
- "feature" that C++ programers have to try to learn, remember, and continually
- program around.
-