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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: Mike Anderson Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/05 Message-ID: <32CFAB9C.2901@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207853503 references: <32CCE4ED.6A21@online.no> <5ajo99$khu@panix.com> <32ce7009.280817694@news.zip.com.au> to: skaller@maxtal.com.au content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Verx x-netcom-date: Sun Jan 05 7:18:43 AM CST 1997 mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: verx@ix.netcom.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) Date: 1997-01-05T07:18:43-06:00 List-Id: I have some questions/comments about this (my words are preceeded by "MA":) John (Max) Skaller wrote: > Stroustrup is to be applauded for making a powerful > "non-religious" language available to everyone. MA: What's "non-religious"? > C++ is not a clean language. It's quite messy and hard to use. But it is available. MA: So what? There are plenty of available languages like that. > No one knows how to design a quality system -- and _also_ make > is widely available. Bjarne decided "having better than what we have" > was better than some intangible thing no one had. MA: I don't understand that and won't comment on it. > Is C++ innovative? Too right it is. > It has the most powerful support for genericity available > in any widely used commercial language. (Sorry, Ada doesn't count, > Eiffel is borderline, current Java is a backward step. If there > is any competition it is from Smalltalk [which uses > dynamism instead]). MA: Why doesn't Ada count; why is Eiffel borderline, and why is current Java a backword step? > Is it "pure OO"? No. Thank goodness. It has something > much better -- a vague and not very good appoximation > to a new methodology which provides vastly superior > reusability, categorical progamming. The evidence > is in Standard (Template) Library which is one of the > most reusable commercial libraries available for any system. MA: The above is utter nonsense (well, someone's got to say it). I don't usually rant but the sentences 'Is it "pure OO"? No. Thank goodness.' pisses me off because I firmly believe I in pure OO. (Hey, I've got some religion, but don't tell anybody.) As far as "a vague and not very good appoximation to a new methodology which provides vastly superior reusability" ...are you being sarcastic or what? ....Mike