Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel

[mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)]

In <1009.237.uupcb@nitelog.com> michael.hagerty@nitelog.com (Michael Hagerty)  
writes:

>The criticisms of C++ were mostly of the variety, "C++ would be a really nice
>language, IFF you could disable the user's ability to use C."  As most users
>already know, this is the big downside to C++.  Unfortunately, the desired
>ability to limit the use of C in C++ is not possible and thus the rivalry 
>continues unabated.  

I'm curious about this.  Perhaps someone who agrees with this can
explain to me why a language restriction is better than, say, an
organizational policy restriction.  Personally, I would consider a
language that allows me to do things in special cases to be better
than one which does not, even if the 'things' are not necessarily a
good idea in the usual case.

[Let's try this one in Email -- I'm *NOT* interested in starting some
kind of language flamewar.  I'm simply honestly curious about the idea
that it is somehow 'better' for a language to restrict the developer
rather than for the developer to restrict himself or herself to good
practice while having the ability to step outside that for unusual
cases.]  

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.