Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ Not Ready for Commercial Use
Message-ID: <6590303@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 89 23:42:08 GMT
References: <24.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 19

/ hplsla:comp.lang.c++ / dfl@Think.COM (David Lively) /  7:06 am  Oct 17, 1989 /
>In article <6590301@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes:
>
>>  Can anyone give any examples of someone who has been programming in C++ for
>>  more than a couple of months who would willing program in any other language
>>  let alone any other dialect of C?
>
>I could name quite a few other (OO) languages which I'd rather use.  But if
>you want reasonable performance for *many* applications, C++ gives you
>that, and beats the hell out of C.  C++ was designed with efficiency as a
>major goal, unlike most (all?) other OO languages.  It accomplishes its
>goals rather well, though substantial improvements are still needed.  (e.g.
>What's the plan for exception handling?  I know it's on the horizon, but
>how far off is that?)
>
>*BIG* Caveat: I've never used another OO C, such as Objective C.

I spent a couple years using Objective-C before switching to C++.  I cannot
imagine anyone switching in the other direction.