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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-18 11:58:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!teleglobe.net!teleglobe.net!24.71.223.12.MISMATCH!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!news2.calgary.shaw.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail From: kaz@accton.shaw.ca (Kaz Kylheku) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith ) References: <%njZ7.279$iR.150960@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <3c36fbc5_10@news.newsgroups.com> <4idg3u40ermnp682n6igc5gudp7hajkea9@4ax.com> <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com> <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com> <3219936759616091@naggum.net> <3C483CE7.D61D1BF@removeme.gst.com> Organization: Psycho-Neurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous Reply-To: kaz@ashi.footprints.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux) Message-ID: <27%18.14120$467.552625@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:57:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.206 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: news2.calgary.shaw.ca 1011383870 24.69.255.206 (Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:57:50 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:57:50 MST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:24671 comp.lang.ada:19075 comp.lang.eiffel:5456 comp.lang.smalltalk:18156 Date: 2002-01-18T19:57:50+00:00 List-Id: In article , Bruce Hoult wrote: >And the really really scary thing is that I know C++ well enough to know >why I need an assignment operator, and know how to write it correctly >off the top of my head (and with the inherited:: call inside the >try{}!). Most C++ places that I've worked I'm the *only* person who >would get this right. Most C++ programmers I have come across know only an imaginary, simplified dialect of C++ that they have assembled from various incorrect sources, and compiler-specific reference. It is my experience that attitudes toward standards and language specifications in general tend to be very poor among C++ users. There is a lot of literature written by idiots and for idiots, purportedly about C++, but really about a simplified dialect having little to do with C++. The literature about languages which are not hyped up tends to be of a much higher quality. The result is that if you typical C++ programmer comes across a textbook about some programming language (like say one of the ones in the Newsgroups: line) that language seems incredibly difficult compared to the simplified language that he misunderstands C++ to be. He doesn't understand that half of his code is not even portable to the compiler he developed it with, but works only by fluke, and that if he were to get it right, he would have to work in a much more complex programming language, namely the real C++.