Re: Ada vs. C++ Paper (was Re: Why ADA?)

[alice!bs@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Bjarne Stroustrup)]

Hmmm. I won't disturb this happy C++ bashing for long, but for people
who would like to get a more accurate view of what C++ is I would
recommend:

	Bjarne Stroustrup:
	The C++ Programming Language (2nd edition)
	Addison-Wesley 1991.

and for a wide range of experiences, applications, and opinions

	Proeedings of the USENIX C++ Conferences

Some reading along those lines would give you some idea why - right or
wrong - some people feel compelled to inform you about C++'s supposed
failings.

I certainly find it hard to recognize C++ in some of the "information"
offered here. C++ isn't just C and most criticism of "C/C+" that I
have seen here don't apply to C++ though often the people criticizing
seem to assume so. Saying "C/C++" is a bit like saying Pascal/Ada."

Similarly, I find it hard to take criticism of the form "C++ is no good
because it doesn't completely conform to my principle #3" seriously.
"Principles" should be backed with significant and relevant experience
as well as logic before deserving that title.

Note that there is a tendency to declare any feature that "my" language
doesn't have but "yours" do "unnecessary, dangerous, and confusing" and
conversely any feature that "my" language has and "your" language doesn't
have "essential." Those arguments I also find hard to take serious.

If you are happy with your current language or feel that some language
different from C++ is more to your taste, that's fine with me of course.
There is no reason to believe that any language is the best choice for
everybody and for every application and - like all other languages -
C++ isn't perfect. However, if you want an accurate opinion of C++ rather
than ammunition for some kind of rwar please get some accurate information.