Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!gaynor
From: gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu (Silver)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs Objective-C
Message-ID: <14969@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 23-Sep-87 00:55:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.14969
Posted: Wed Sep 23 00:55:08 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Sep-87 06:03:16 EDT
References: <3405@ece-csc.UUCP> <638@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <1811@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <1971@tekig5.TEK.COM> <7297@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 24
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.misc:679 comp.lang.smalltalk:329 comp.lang.c++:447

ark@alice.UUCP writes:
> After all, since C compiles into machine language, there are only
> machine language structures in C.

This statement is misleading, reflecting ignorance of the difference
between data types and data structures.  It would have been correct
and more informative to say:

  The data types of (native) C were chosen because they are
  efficiently mapped onto those of almost every machine language.

This applies to Pascal, Algol, and almost all languages termed Fourth
Generation.  However, the data types of, say, Lisp and Prolog, often
do not map as easily onto those of machine languages.

Heresay: C++ is generally superior to Objective-C except supportive
software-development software.

Silver.

LOOKING FOR ENTRY-LEVELISH C/LISP PROGRAMMING, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Andy Gaynor   201-545-0458   81 Hassart St, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
  gaynor@topaz.rutgers.edu   ...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!gaynor
     "There is no Editor but Emacs, and Lisp is its Prophet."