[Gllug] Office software -> c/c++ debate

[Pete Ryland]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 04:43:57PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 03:26:42PM +0000, Pete Ryland wrote:
> > C++ is a superset of C.
> 
> Some C code is not valid C++, so that is not strictly accurate.
> Objective-C was specifically designed to be a superset of C and so to
> compile all C code.  It's supporters also cite the simpler O-O model as
> an advantage.

oh ok, I always saw it as strictly a superset.  [off topic?] What sort of
stuff is not downward compatible?

> It does sometimes seem to me that the architects of C++ (the guys on the
> standards committees) seem to be on a mission to ensure job security
> through obscurity.  A lot of the ordinary mortals who use C++ stick to
> the small subset of its features that they are familiar with and don't
> venture beyond.

Yes, agreed, which, IMHO, is why C++ is so hard to maintain - on top of its
unnecessary complexity, every coder seems to use a different subset to
another.  "TMTOWTDI" might be an advantage in perl, for example, but I
reckon that trying to maintain some 10000-line C++ monster written by
someone else in their style can be a nightmare.

My 2c.. or should I say 2p?

Pete, certainly not a C++ guru, but I have used it a bit.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug