Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!udel!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
From: wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Should C++ follow C's footsteps?
Summary: It has to follow C or nobody will use it.
Message-ID: <486@ubbpc.UUCP>
Date: 23 Feb 89 21:56:30 GMT
References: <4800051@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <8902@alice.UUCP> <2438@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Organization: Unisys UNIX Portation Center, Blue Bell, PA
Lines: 28

In article <2438@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) writes:
> In article <8902@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> >C++ is already somewhat incompatibile with C, of course.  The question
> >is: under what circumstances is is worthwhile for it to become
> >more so?
> 
> If C++ is already somewhat incompatible, would it not be wise to leave C
> syntax behind entirely? Two reasons why, 
> 1) [ ... syntax is crummy ]
> 2) [ ... similarity to C is deceptive and promotes programming errors ... ]

I agree with your criticisms of the syntax of C++, but I am afraid you can't
change it in the next few years.  If C++ is not a near-superset of C, it
will die: there is too much C code to rewrite.  Think of Lotus 1-2-3
release 3.0 (if it ever gets released: 3-400K lines?).

  Once C++ becomes the new de-facto standard, it will be meaningful to
talk about (C++)++ [ which I know is now a syntax error! ].

  I suggest that C++ cannot become the de-facto standard portable application
programming language until
  (1) UNIX is substantially re-written in C++, and
  (2) Microsoft releases a C++ with the Microsoft 5.1 features included.
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!liberty!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
Unisys UNIX Portation Center
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121         Jacobites unite: Scotland Free in '93!!
Blue Bell, PA 19424