Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:1860 comp.sys.next:449
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!nsc!taux01!cjosta
From: cjosta@taux01.UUCP (Jonathan Sweedler)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs C++
Message-ID: <913@taux01.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 11:17:30 GMT
References: <8335@nlm-mcs.arpa> <3438@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <8375@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: cjosta@taux01.UUCP (Jonathan Sweedler)
Organization: National Semiconductor (Israel) Ltd.
Lines: 36

In article <8375@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>
>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.

Big deal.  I learned Pascal in a few hours after knowing C.  Does this
mean Pascal is "programmer compatible" with C?  Well then so is
Fortran, Cobal, etc...  That doesn't change the fact that converting
large, complex programs from one language to another is a large,
complex task.  Maybe converting from C to C++ is easier, but it
is still a tedious, error prone task.

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

Yeah, right.  An then how about debugging?  The whole point about
*compatability* is that you don't have to do this conversion that
is NEVER as easy as it seems.  And what do you mean by "good" C++
programmer?  Certainly not the same programmer that learned C++
"in a day or less."  Everything looks good in the best-case light.
I don't think things are as easy in real life.

>
>Cfront, the first implementation of C++, increments C and yields
>C as its output.  Thus C++ is a more appropriate name than ++C.
>-- 

A rose by any other name... :-}

-- 
Jonathan Sweedler  ===  National Semiconductor Israel
UUCP:    ...!{amdahl,hplabs,decwrl}!nsc!taux01!cjosta
Domain:  cjosta@taux01.nsc.com