Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpccc!hpcc01!hp-ses!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!shankar
From: shankar@hpclisp.HP.COM (Shankar Unni)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Were GNU C extensions proposed for the standard?
Message-ID: <660077@hpclisp.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 90 02:59:12 GMT
References: <153@dy4.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 17

> > Since the ANSI standardization of C++ is under way, there is not much point
> > in a subsequent standard for C that is not C++.
> 
> Why not? C is not C++. It's not certain that C++ is even the best way to
> add object-oriented features to C, particularly given the existence of
> a competing implementation, Objective-C, and languages like Eiffel that
> compile to C.

Well, since C++ gives you almost everything you ever wanted in C, why not
use it in a C-like fashion and simply take advantage of the nifty new
features (instead of dragging in the object-oriented paradigm)? No one
mandates that all C++ programmers *must* program in an O-O fashion.

C++ also makes wonderful sense as simply a "nicer C".
------
Shankar Unni.
Hewlett-Packard Company.