Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!emory!mephisto!udel!new From: new@udel.EDU (Darren New) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: what is c++, c, ansi c etc... Message-ID: <16705@estelle.udel.EDU> Date: 12 Apr 90 23:10:48 GMT References: <6000:Apr720:31:1490@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <28742@cup.portal.com> <539@tmiuv0.uucp> <1990Apr12.214718.18545@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) Distribution: usa Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 16 In article <1990Apr12.214718.18545@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> davies@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: >All in all, I tend to agree with Mr. Bernstein - the same old >stuff using some new words. I would like to ask you whether you have done any significant implementation and/or design in an OO language? Like Smalltalk or CLOS? (C++ doesn't really count much because you can just ignore the OO stuff.) I have done large apps in both Smalltalk and C and there is definitely different styles of thinking during the problem solving. Which is better seems to me to depend on what is being designed and implemented. Obviously-linear code is easy to do in C and harder in Smalltalk. Code that "flies around" alot in such a way that it is not clear exactly what will happen next (window systems, say, or simulations) are MUCH easier in Smalltalk. The difference is not in the low end; it's in the initial design and top-level implementation. Copying strings is the same in both. -- Darren