Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:1859 comp.sys.next:448
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!encore!cloud9!cme
From: cme@cloud9.UUCP (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs C++
Summary: *just temporary*
Message-ID: <2273@cloud9.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 13:20:03 GMT
References: <8335@nlm-mcs.arpa> <3438@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA
Lines: 24

In article <3438@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:
> 
> True, a C compiler cannot make
> some optimizations which a C++ compiler can make, because some
> semanitcs are lost in the translation.  This is usually not significant
> to early implementations based on a prototype language anyway.

(flame on)

PLEASE -- I've heard this argument, in various flavors, for years.

Prototype languages don't exist.  They hang on -- because their code
hangs on.

Burt Sutherland, ex- of Lincoln Labs and Xerox PARC, once said:
"Programs are like waffles -- you should always throw the first
one out."

Unfortunately, I've never seen anyone follow that maxim.

(flame off)

--Carl Ellison          ...!harvard!anvil!es!cme    (normal mail address)
                        ...!ulowell!cloud9!cme      (usenet news reading)
(standard disclaimer)