Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!rutgers!ucsd!sdcc6!calmasd!jnp
From: jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ considered disenchanting
Message-ID: <117@calmasd.GE.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 88 16:06:28 GMT
References: <441@grand.UUCP> <2010@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: GE/Calma, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
Lines: 34
In-reply-to: crovella@sunybcs.uucp's message of 17 Oct 88 13:52:03 GMT


(Dave Yost) writes:
   >[...]  I pulled away from the C++
   >conferences because I became disenchanted with C++.
   >[...]  C++ continues to amaze me with how hairy and
   >complex it is.
   >[...] Yes, strongly-typed object orientation seems like
   >the right direction, but it can be a lot nicer than
   >C++.

(Mark Crovella) writes:
  >Dave's observations are on target;
  >...
  >The questions Dave raises are important -- I think it would be interesting 
  >to hear people's views on them.

Sorry Mark, I can't agree - Dave's comments seem naive to me, not
important. I would absolutely love to have a nickle for each new
programmer who completely missed the point of C and by implication
C++.  The unmatched expressiveness and flexibility of C and C++ are,
at once, their greatest asset and their greatest drawback.  C and its
extension C++ allow for extremely compact and powerful code, while
extracting care and deliberation from the programmer.  Simplified
(read less expressive) syntax and strong (read less flexible) typing
are fine, as far as they go, but they are no "better" and surely are
less powerful than the relatively low-level C and C++ languages.
There is no point in C/C++ bashing - if you can't stand the heat, get
out of the kitchen - there are higher-level languages which will cater
to your needs.

-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   jnp@calmasd.GE.COM   GEnie: J.PANTONE