Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!apple!bloom-beacon!primerd!ENI!ENR!LANDON
From: LANDON@ENR.Prime.COM
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: C_Talk review and final review if C
Message-ID: <237700003@ENR.Prime.COM>
Date: 25 Aug 89 09:27:00 GMT
References: <5258@umd5.umd.edu>
Lines: 52
Nf-ID: #R:umd5.umd.edu:-525800:ENR:237700003:000:2069
Nf-From: ENR.Prime.COM!LANDON    Aug 25 09:27:00 1989


/* Written  4:24 pm  Aug 24, 1989 by jonnyg@umd5.UUCP in ENR:comp.windows.ms */
/* ---------- "C_Talk review and final review if C" ---------- */

>First of all I finished reviewing CommonView C++. I found it to
>be mostly broken.

You better come clean, because this statement has no credibility.  I've
been working with CommonView since its release, and while I've had my
frustrations, it's been due to "user error" in most cases.  There are bugs
but they are being nailed expeditiously.  You need to tell the net what
your review consisted of and define what you mean by mostly broken.  I
haven't found this to be the case at all.

You need to specify your CommonView release, memory configuration, whether
you reviewed the Windows or PM libraries.  What in the world did you do
to review it?  By what standards did you measure it?

>The class library is realy bad

Compared to what?  SmallTalk?  Give it a break - it's a new product and
has growing pains like anything else.  Glockenspiel is cranking and has
been diligent in updates.

Just the help CommonView is to memory management under Windows is worth
the price of the package.

>and the examples won't hold water.

Your statements don't hold water when you don't back them up.
Tell the net exactly what you are talking about and maybe your statements
will be credible.

>I saw a lot of promises in the read.me's that say so much will
>happen in such a short time that I beleive none of it will happen.

Glockenspiel has their work cut out for them, but their efforts can only help
us as developers, so why the nay-say?

Time will tell - what you believe at this point won't slow them down or
speed them up.

>Now that I fully understand C++ I feel C++ is to OOPS as COBOL is to
>stuctured programming! C++ may be an OOPS but it is not a very good one.

Since you fully understand C++ I'm sure Bjarne could use some help as
could many of the contributors to comp.lang.c++.

Your myopic view of C++ will cost your employer dearly.

For being such an impotent OOP language it sure has a lot of you guys
scared.