Re: C++ is a preprocessor (was Admiral Tuttle Revisited ...)

[alex@MIMSY.CS.UMD.EDU (Alex Blakemore)]

In article <9307250105.aa25189@dsc.blm.gov> cjames@DSC.BLM.GOV (Colin James 062
1) writes:
> A number of writers on internet are attempting to defend the integrity  of C+
+

no one has ever accused me of that before.
C++ improves C in a few areas, but is seriously flawed in many more than it fix
es.
(to see what God intended object oriented C to look like, see Objective C :)

> on the basis that C++ is not a preprocessor, but that C++ can
> be a preprocessor depending on the implementation. 

this statement shows a certain lack of understanding.

> The argument turns on what the notion of preprocessor means.  The liberal
> definition, as used by the critics, is that a preprocessor is really an
> implementation form or part of a compiler.  

In this case, as with so many others,
the liberal definition is the correct one.

   8^)

> What follows then is that
> C++ is a compiler, whether or not it is a preprocessor.
   
NO NO NO
C++ is a LANGUAGE

There are implementations based upon preprocessors (most in the beginning)
There are also implementations that are NOT based upon preprocessors (more and 
more)

The second kind is certainly better, especially if you have to spend any
amount of time in the debugger
(as most C programmers do, studying their core dumps)

-- 
Alex Blakemore       alex@cs.umd.edu        NeXT mail accepted
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Without an engaged and motivated human being at the keyboard,
the computer is just another dumb box."      William Raspberry