Xref: utzoo comp.object:3586 comp.lang.c++:13657
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!psuvax1!news
From: schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long)
Message-ID: <$y9Hsqgd@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 25 May 91 01:31:49 GMT
References: <2325@media03.UUCP> <1991May24.015856.9979@csusac.csus.edu>
	<rpdHp3sc@cs.psu.edu> <1991May24.195719.13584@netcom.COM>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: penn state university, computer science
Lines: 22
In-Reply-To: jls@netcom.COM's message of Fri, 24 May 1991 19: 57:19 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: groucho.cs.psu.edu


jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
| Could you elaborate? I would like a better definition of "junk" than
| is available above. 

I don't have a highly precise definition in mind.  The notion involved
is the difficulty of implimenting and using the language.  Junk is not
necessarily a derogatory term, it just reflects a presumption that
every feature has to justify being there.

|  Which of the following is junk?:
|  [long list]

Yes, all of that, and lots more.  Junk is about both features and
utility.  If there are lots of features, that's junky. If it takes
lots of rules to explain a feature, that's junky.  If there are lots
of associated special cases, that's junky.  If the feature doesn't do
its purported job well, that's junky.  Just counting pages in the
language reference may not be a good metric; you have to read the
pages and see what they say.  Naturally these sort of judgements are
subject to debate, but to a first approximation I don't see that Ada
is substantially more junky than C++.