Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!ethz!neptune!iiic.ethz.ch!mneerach From: mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Reading the ARM Message-ID: <11216@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> Date: 11 Oct 90 21:50:37 GMT References: Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch Reply-To: mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) Organization: Departement Informatik, ETH, Zurich Lines: 45 In article pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: ]Yesterday I was on a train trip for twelve hours, so I had the time for ]something I had wanted to do for the past few weeks, a cover to cover ]uninterrupted read of the Annotated Reference Manual. It took me only ]four hours. ]I recommend the experience to anybody -- it is simply amazing, in many ]ways, especially if you are already familiar with the Algol 68 Revised ]Report. I have read the ARM, but not the Algol 68 Revised Report. Still, it seems to me there are some essential differences: The ARM describes a language that is in its essential parts already implemented. There are several independent implementations which compile fast and produce efficient code (though not always both at the same time :-). C++ is already in widespread use, and many people use it already in more or less the form of the proposed standard. This seems to be different from the Algol 68 case. ]If this is where we are going, I am perplexed. Seeing it all before your ]eyes in one go makes you ponder. I would give more details, but I think ]the experience is ineffable, and has to be relived to be appreciated :-). At first, reading the ARM was also somewhat perplexing to me, but on closer examination, everything that was mentioned is already implemented and feasible implementations were shown. The whole ARM shows how much care was taken that no excessive strains were put on implementors and programmers. The attention paid to details doesn't seem to be due to "featurism", but to the lot of user feedback, experience, and discussion already used in the development of C++. I'd like to see what your vision of C++ is. Your articles seem to indicate that you prefer languages like C or maybe Object Oberon. This is ok with me, but don't you agree that if you think C++ is a good idea, the path indicated in the ARM is the right way to go ? Matthias ----- Matthias Neeracher mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_