Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:1870 comp.sys.next:484
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs C++
Message-ID: <8375@alice.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 03:36:21 GMT
References: <8335@nlm-mcs.arpa> <3438@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 31

In article <3438@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:
> Face it: the only reason we are talking about using C++ or Objective-C
> is because of a desire to be "upwardly compatible" with existing C
> code.  Note, however, that C++ IS NOT "upwardly compatible" with C,
> rather C++ IS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE!  Just try including <sunview.h>,
> and you will see what I mean.  Or any large C language program!

C++ is programmer compatible with C.  By this I mean the following:

	You can take a large project with a bunch of C programmers
	and have them writing working equivalent C++ programs in
	a day or less.

	You can convert your system from C to C++ a module at a time
	without having to throw the whole thing out and start over.

	You can write large systems that will compile in both C++
	and ANSI C without change and do the same thing.

	A good C++ programmer can convert about 1,000 lines of
	old C an hour to C++.  Converting ANSI C should be faster.

> Since people are willing to use C++ anyways, perhaps what we should
> REALLY do is create a new, GOOD object language, and call it, say, ++C,
> and use it instead.  Besides, the name would then be semantically
> correct! :-)

Cfront, the first implementation of C++, increments C and yields
C as its output.  Thus C++ is a more appropriate name than ++C.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com