Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!munnari!muller
From: muller@munnari.oz (Paul Muller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Should C++ follow C's footsteps?
Summary: I may have missed the point, but....
Message-ID: <2677@munnari.oz>
Date: 13 Feb 89 13:31:56 GMT
References: <4800051@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Lines: 58

In article <4800051@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, wsmith@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> Why is it so important that C++ be compatible with C at the source level?
> 
> I think this restriction makes it much more difficult to parse or evolve.
> 
> I think it is time for C++ to be emancipated from backward compatability 
> with C at the source level.
> (If this topic has generated any previous polite discussions in the past,
> save your breath and just send me a transcript...)


I gather from what you are saying that the downward compatibility of the C++
language with its PREDECESSOR is indesirable?

That seems to me to be the metal equivalent of walking backward for Xmas.....
I gather Bjarne's whole idea was to EXTEND the language in a way that would
allow for the traditional C syntax and tersness, yet embody the spirit of
many of the OOP concepts (classes, inheritance, etc). I admit to being new to
this idea, and for the greater part still program in pure C, though I like
the idea of slowly extending my existing code, QUICKLY and WITHOUT a complete
rewrite. I can then examine the code and find areas where the new language
elemants of C++ would allow the code to be more functional or even just plain
readable.

If people wanted a language that shed any/all of the so called 'restrictions'
of C, they would use Smalltalk.
(for those concerned enough to possibly act on that last statement, I used
Smalltalk as a quick and dirty example for another OOP)

I think you should look at it from the point of view that it is C++ not

{
while(idiosyncrasies(spel?))
     {
     C++
     }
}

if that were to continue for every complaint about the language you would end
up with either an unweildly and difficult language to impement and use, or
a language that is so far removed from its namesake that it would only lead
to confusion as to its purpose/use.

I am sorry if I got to high on my soap box, but I feel that the problem with
the C++ language is that people like to play around with the definition to
suit them, hoping that because of the relative 'newness' of the language,
people will conform to their ideas and create yet another language, and I
just couldn't stand buying YAC (yet another compiler) :-)

Is Bjarne around to comment? Is there currently any gorverning body (eg ANSI)
that are trying to freeze the language for long enough to let Microsoft get a
version out :-)

Paul
PS I use Zortech C++ for those curious. Oh and Walter, if you're reading, I
was shipped a free update, it arrived Friday (1.07). Is the new debugger any
good?