Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:8685 comp.software-eng:4002
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!abvax!iccgcc!klimas
From: klimas@astro.pc.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Project experience with C++
Message-ID: <294.26b56ac2@astro.pc.ab.com>
Date: 31 Jul 90 16:25:54 GMT
References: <812@agcsun.UUCP> <222.26a42b7d@astro.pc.ab.com> <13038@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Lines: 17

In article <13038@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> In article <222.26a42b7d@astro.pc.ab.com> klimas@astro.pc.ab.com writes:
> 
>>	I think that there is a rather unanimous opinion that C++ is a better
>>	C in many ways, most noteably through better modularity of code. 
> 
> That "unanimous opinion" is not unanimous anywhere outside the C++ newsgroup.
	There are a number of problems that result from the misapplication
	of any language and all of the OOP languages have successes and 
	failures based upon their target applications.  The fact that is
	trying to be conveyed is that developers of large systems using
	C++ seem to feel that their code is more modular than straight C and
	hence its a better C.  Whether C++ is a better OOP than
	one of the other languages I am not going to initiate yet another
	language war, I believe that a process of evolutionary natural 
	selection will resolve the winner much more conclusively than any 
	articulate debate will.