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: 21 Jul 93 01:23:02 GMT
From: usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!stein2.u.w
ashington.edu!bketcham@decwrl.dec.com  (Benjamin Ketcham)
Subject: Re: Admiral Tuttle (Should be ...) Revisited
Message-ID: <22i5pm$l4r@news.u.washington.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9307140635.aa13529@dsc.blm.gov> cjames@DSC.BLM.GOV (Colin James 062
1) writes:
>
>Mark C Carroll, and others, assert that C++ is not a pre-processor
>and that C does not necessarily produce faster running code.  In
>my opinion they are misinformed because the original definition
>and intent of C++ was as a pre-processor to generate C code (not
>assembler or machine code).  If C++ has become something else then
>it should have a new name such as C+++ for non-pre-processor
>implementations on hardware platforms such as PC's.
>
>I do regret the confusion generated by attributing "oracorp.com" to
>Oracle;  I also regret making valid arguments about C and C++ because
>those comments were not read carefully by the critics, and hence my
>cartouche below.

Just for fun, I'm also directing followups to comp.lang.c++.  Somebody
*please* explain to this person the difference between language definition
and implementation.

--ben