From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Dann Corbit" Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <01bc0cae$e4f474c0$ca61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212718119 references: <32D11FD3.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl> organization: PSI Public Usenet Link newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Following that line of reasoning: There are thousands of books on elementary arithmetic. Many times as many as the number of C++ books. That must mean that leaning elementary arithmetic is only for Ph.D. candidates. Certainly not for young children. Your argument is NULL. Try reading one of Steve Heller's books on C++. They are designed so that absolutely anyone can understand. I am not saying that C++ is the easiest thing on earth to learn. Sometimes, there is difficulty associated with learning (even elementary arithmetic has perils for those who have not yet grasped all nuances). Learning C++ is not so difficult that a capable high school student cannot learn it. Sean Case wrote in article ... > In article , > bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) wrote: > > >I think that if C++ was as hard to understand and use as some people claim, > >it would have failed to become popular in the first place and would have > >vanished under the continuous barrage of fair and unfair criticism - despite > >its (eventual) popularity. > > and also > > >I have often found myself wondering if the C++ wouldn't have been much better > >for all concered had there (just) been two dozen good C++ books instead of > >the 400+ books that mostly fail to teach the basic principles and mostly > >lead students and programmers astray. > > So, C++ must be easy to learn, or else there wouldn't be hundreds of books > about it by people who don't understand it properly. > > Or, to put it another way, C++ looks easy to learn, but has hidden pitfalls > that bedevil even those who write books on the subject.