Re: Why use C++?

["Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net>]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 12.08.11 21:51, Jed wrote:
>
>> So the benefit, then, just not having to learn something?
>
>
> "Oh no, not again."

What.

>
>
> (1) If you need to know X in order to write program P, you
>     should have learned X.

If you chose the path to implement program P, then it behooves you to 
understand the tool you choose to do that with. Else you may end up with 
less than five digits on your right hand (assuming you are right-handed).

>
> (2) If you do not need to know X for writing P, having
>     learned X neither helps nor hurts. (e.g. X ::= float)

If one is a "soul-searching geriatric", or a "penis-bound adolescent", 
your theory "holds" (probably not). So who died and left you boss?

>
> (3) If a language L1 requires X for P, you must learn X.

The consequences of choice.

>
> (4) If a language L2 doesn't require X for P, you may
>     learn X, but need not.

But maybe one would want to. And maybe one would choose not to tell you 
why! :P

>
> (5) If P produced by L1 equals P produced by L2, then
>     we don't need X for P.  QED

Isn't that why the USA "economy" is bust? Don't make me say "snakeoil". 
(And for your info, Mr. High on His Horse, I have a college degree, not a 
QED (so don't even start this shit that you are smarter than me) :P ).

[snippage]