Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Production Object-Oriented Languages
Message-ID: <4097@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 19:04:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4097
Posted: Mon Jul 16 19:04:04 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Jul-84 19:04:04 EDT
References: <1855@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 18

> After reading the C++ rationale and reference manual, I am convinced that
> the C++ extensions are so easy to implement, that there is no reason they
> shouldn't be included in an ANSI C standard.  If you're going to
> standardize, you might as well bring C completely up to date.

Were you reading the same Bell Labs tech reports I was?!?  I'm not yet
sure quite what to make of C++ ... but it's not C.  It's an interesting
experiment, and may well be the wave of the future.  But despite the
tone of the tech reports, C++ is not just "the latest C"; it is a new
language.  A very new language.  Today's ANSI effort is standardizing
the current C language, not the latest wonderful new C-derived language.
Once there are a few more C++ implementations, and some more experience
with it, *then* it might be appropriate to standardize C++, as C++.

In short, however interesting C++ may be, C++ != C .
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry