Bjarne Stroustrup <bs@research.att.com> a �crit dans l'article
<E3pzy4.DHE@research.att.com>...
...
> Had C++ not been relatively easy to learn and use reasonably well, it
> would have disappeared long ago. By relative I mean the amount of effort
> needed compared to the amount of benefit gained.

In an absolute way, surely C++ is harder to learn than a lot of other
languages.

Now, let's talk about the "relatively easy to learn". Another way that
effort vs benefit to relativise is language's complexity vs the complexity
of the job to do.
An exemple : if you want to display the "hello world", C++ is not the
better language. 

Conclusion : More and more complex becomes the job to do, the less and less
the language is hard to learn (still talking relatively).
...
> Deciding which member functions should be virtual is a design decision,
> not an optimization. If a designer has provided a poor base class, you
> will typically have problems beyond what can be fixed by overriding.
Just a question about it (I just posted a new thread about this) : when a
member function is better as non virtual ?


-- 
Chris
"The nail pulling up calls the hammer"
                                     zen proverb