Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!johnson
From: johnson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs Objective-C
Message-ID: <77300003@uiucdcsp>
Date: Thu, 24-Sep-87 22:52:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsp.77300003
Posted: Thu Sep 24 22:52:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 02:53:37 EDT
References: <604@artecon.artecon.UUCP>
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #R:artecon.artecon.UUCP:604:uiucdcsp:77300003:000:1016
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu!johnson    Sep 24 21:52:00 1987


While I spent a number of years as a C programmer, I have spent the last
several using Smalltalk and enjoying every minute of it.  Recently I have
had the opportunity to learn and use C++.  It was not at all hard for me
to learn, and I have not had the slightest problem with & or any other
symbol.  My problems have been the usual C problems with null pointers
and the like.  My opinion is that C++ is a good compromise between the
Unix environment and object-oriented programming.  I don't understand the
recent complaints about it.

The major problem with C++ is the lack of a class library.  AT&T is
shooting themselves in the foot by not providing one.  OOP (or is it OOPS?)
is a start, but AT&T did not create it.  The major advantage of o-o
programming is software reuse, but reusable software is ten times as hard to
write as software than merely works, so it is entirely unreasonable to expect
local programmers to produce it.  An object-oriented language needs an
extensive class library to be successful.