NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/lang/cplus/16096

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-11 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!ntmtv!corpgate!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!dsr
From: [e-mail] (D.S.Riches)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,bnr.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Criticisms wanted
Date: 11 Nov 1992 09:46:59 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, England.
Lines: 32
Distribution: bnr
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.199.202.51

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> fraserf@bmerh9a4 (Fraser Fulford) writes:
>>D.S.Riches ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>
>>: Now, I've seen many pro's for the use of C++ but not really any for the
>>: cons of C++.  What I'd like is a set of reasons why C++ shouldn't be
>>: used.  Preferably, I want ones which are just C++ specific and not ones
>>: that can also be applied to C as well.  There is no other language to
>>: be considered and so I'm not interested in suggestions for going to
>>: another language.
>
>If you will not consider any other language, what is the point?

Yeah ok, what I meant was that it was either C or C++ and not C or
Prolog (for instance) :-).  You win a gummy bear :-)


On a more worrying point.  I've only seen a couple of replies to my
original post and those were from T.H. Chow and fraser but they seem to
suggest that there have been other replies which I haven't seen in
good(?) old England here.

Is there an archive of bnr.lang.c++ anywhere?

Dave (felling lonely and isolated :-( )

   Dave Riches
   Email:  [e-mail]
   Smail:  BNR Europe Ltd, London Road,
           Harlow, Essex. CM17 9NA.  England
   Phone:  [phone]
   Fax:    [phone]