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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful Date: 1998/08/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 380389670 Sender: nntp@research.att.com X-Nntp-Posting-Host: raptor.research.att.com References: <35D01FCA.236B46F6@gmx.net> Organization: AT&T Research, Florham Park, NJ Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jeffrey C. Dege wrote: > A few years back, I browsed through a copy of "Writing Solid Code", and > judged it to be a poorly organized mish-mash of supposedly "clever" > C++ tricks, many of which were worthless, and with no guidance > whatsoever as to when the ones that weren't would be appropriate. Hmmm... I may be misremembering, but I recall "Writing Solid Code" as having very little, if anything, to do with C++ programming technique. Lots of C stuff, and I'm sure there is plenty of room for differences of opinion as to when that stuff is useful. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com http://www.research.att.com/info/ark