Re: C++

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Daniel Barlow wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 10:37:59AM -0400, Bruce McDonald wrote:
> > the furtherment of either.  The technical merits of C++ are obvious (you
> > missed namespaces - you can  also hack around it in C - sorta...)
> But hardly unique to C++.  Let's not forget that many of the people
> who like to say nasty things about C++ would actually prefer to be
> using something yet higher-level (whether that be lisp, scheme,
> python, perl etc) and the reason for doing the fundamental stuff in C
> is to make it easier to write useful programs in _any_ of these languages.
Exact the point. That's also one argument why gtk should not get it's own
GC, as language specific GC usually poorly coexists with other GC in
the same address space.
> > frameworks which I intend to be non-UI specific.  I also find it quite
> > amusing the way the all these C hacks are put forward as valid
> > work-arounds for missing language features - like implicit admissions.
> If that's your viewpoint, I can rest safe in the knowledge that you
> won't claim GC is unnecessary in a language because Boehm's add-on
> conservative GC is a valid workaround :-)
Who needs garbage collections? Our destructors do all the clear work. And
WHO would want dynamic storage that lives longer than the scope of the
function, ... (I know about ``SmartPtrs''. A really poor substitute and
additionally, potentially every library on the earth has it's own idea
of smartptrs -> the very least problem in this is that understanding C++
code is getting a nightmare, ...)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]