Re: Why C++ is successful

[Charles Hixson <charleshixson@earthling.net>]

But what Ada REALLY needs is a good garbage collection mechanism.  And
saying "Do it by hand" doesn't qualify as good!

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Pat Rogers wrote:
> > Dave Martin wrote:
> ... snip ...
> > >
> > >Personally, for the last several years i've been trying to detect my
> > >own hidden assumptions and biases, and nullify them.  I never want to
> > >turn into the old dog who can't learn new tricks or becomes closed-
> > >minded to something simply because its different.  Unfortunately I
> > >haven't always been successful, but i'm trying.
> >
> > That's why I'm learning Java now, and Eiffel and C++ in the past.  They all
> > contribute something to make one a better developer.  I need to take another
> > look at Fortran, because it sure isn't the Fortran IV I used in the old
> > days!
> 
> I don't want to discourage anyone from learning new things, but IMO Java,
> Ada, C++, and Eiffel are not really all that different, I'd even say they
> are pretty close in the whole space of programming languages. Why not try
> a few really different languages, like:
> 
> (1) A logic language, like Prolog or Mercury
> (2) A functional language, like OCaml, Haskell, or Scheme
> (3) An OO language with multimethods, like Common Lisp
> (4) Any of a number of interesting other languages, like Forth, Icon, ...
> 
> This isn't meant as a disagreement with Pat Rogers. I actually like Ada
> and think it is worth knowing, just that if you want to stretch your mind
> and are not solely interested in getting a job using some particular
> language, it might be worth it to you to consider a wider range.
> 
> -- Brian

-- 
Charles Hixson	charleshixson@earthling.net
(510) 464-7733	or chixso@mtc.dst.ca.us