Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long)
Message-ID: <1991May27.043428.731@odi.com>
Date: 27 May 91 04:34:28 GMT
References: <2325@media03.UUCP> <1991May24.015856.9979@csusac.csus.edu> <31061@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Followup-To: comp.object
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 30
In-Reply-To: connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu's message of 24 May 91 20:54:44 GMT

In article <31061@dime.cs.umass.edu> connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Connolly) writes:

   I agree wholeheartedly.  The language is probably too big for its own
   good, and its bigness results from an obsession with backward
   compatibility and efficiency.

It is precisely because of its backward compatibility and its
efficiency that C++ is becoming so popular and successful.  If you
don't care about those things, of course, you are free to use another
language.  (Here in America, we have choices! :-)

   >IMHO, C++ promotes building a typesafe object-based *application*.

   We've been through this before - I don't see what's "safe" about being
   able to cast pointers back and forth at will.  As has been pointed out
   previously, the programmer who lies to the compiler is asking for
   trouble, but this fact doesn't make C++ "typesafe".

He said that it "promotes" it, not that it enforces it.  You might
prefer a language that didn't provide any way to override the type
system.  To me, that would be like riding in a car in which the seat
belts welded shut.  I always wear seat belts, but I do like the
ability to override them from time to time when the need arises.

   My experience so far suggests that a more accurate statement might be
   "Many will successfully produce `.H' files.".  

Plenty of companies have already produced substantial products written
in C++.  Continued arguments about how it cannot happen, or will never
happen, are rather unconvincing.