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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5701 comp.lang.c++:14177
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!mips!apple!netcomsv!jls
From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: c++ vs ada results
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.041751.3740@netcom.COM>
Date: 18 Jun 91 04:17:51 GMT
References: <1991Jun12.164741.412@news.larc.nasa.gov> <1991Jun12.201740.16463@netcom.COM> <1991Jun16.041037.11606@kithrup.COM>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

[I've cut the newsgroups down to a reasonable number.]

>>>o	C++ is hard to master.
>>Indeed. Note that this contradicts the claim made earlier that C++ is
>>easy to learn.

>You are truly showing your foolishness here.  Most people out of grade
>school realize there is a difference between "learning" something and
>"mastering" it.  I guess you're just special, aren't you?

The person I was responding to was talking about the difficulty of
learning to write good programs in C++. He chose the term "master"
to denote this. I chose the term "learn" to denote this same idea.
Why this warranted a personal attack is beyond me, particularly
since you seem to have not taken issue with the key point of the
exchange, namely that getting good at writing programs in C++ is hard
to do.
-- 
*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *