Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut
From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C++ from Microsoft???
Message-ID: <4302@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 90 03:24:27 GMT
References: <12587.25D1A921@urchin.fidonet.org>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 22

In article <12587.25D1A921@urchin.fidonet.org> Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) writes:
| 
|   Finally, the one thing all vendors are doing that worries me is something I
| might not have expected with the adoption of the ANSI standard. Since C
| compiler technology has reached a level where all of the major compilers are  
| pretty much competitive, everyone in the PC market seems to be looking for a  
| competitive edge by extending the language. When Walter did this with his  
| __handle pointers, it seemed like a pretty good idea. As I hear of more and  
| more incompatible language extensions being added to MQC 6/QC 2.5, TC 3, JPIC,
| etc., it's starting to disturb me. 

While this proliferation is disturbing, I see no viable alternative.  The
PC world simply codes in C.  Unfortunately, C isn't adequate for maintaining
large projects.  So people start clamouring for C++.  Yet, even now, people
have run into the limitations of C++.  Now if you were a vendor of PC
compilers, would you wait 'til Robert Stroustrup added parameterized types
to C++, or would you do it yourself?

--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)

Peace and Prejudice Don't Mix! (unknown add copy)