From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 2 Feb 93 18:05:52 GMT From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel Message-ID: <1993Feb2.180552.5536@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: 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.