Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!f.gp.cs.cmu.edu!dld From: dld@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (David Detlefs) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: C++ too complex Message-ID: <3612@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 18 Nov 88 19:46:00 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 22 A number of recent posts under this subject have contained statement of the form "C is better than C++ for ." I fail to see how this could be so (except for the statement "C compiles take less time than C++ compiles for certain common implementations of C++"), since it is always possible to use C++ just as if it were a strongly-typed C. I would argue to the death with anyone who claims that the weak type checking of (non-Ansi) C is superior to the strong checking of C++ in *any* application. I don't mean to put words in people's mouths, but perhaps what the people making these statements are saying is that the object-oriented features of C++ lead to better programs in the hands of experienced programmers, but the temptation for inexperience object-oriented programmers to use them without understanding them leads to bad programs. I think this is a different statement than saying that "C is better than C++" for anything. -- Dave Detlefs Any correlation between my employer's opinion Carnegie-Mellon CS and my own is statistical rather than causal, dld@cs.cmu.edu except in those cases where I have helped to form my employer's opinion. (Null disclaimer.) --