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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-18 09:45:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.sunrise.ch!news.sunrise.ch!not-for-mail Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp Sender: rk@FINNOEY Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith ) References: <%njZ7.279$iR.150960@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <3c36fbc5_10@news.newsgroups.com> <4idg3u40ermnp682n6igc5gudp7hajkea9@4ax.com> <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com> <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com> <3219936759616091@naggum.net> <3C483CE7.D61D1BF@removeme.gst.com> Organization: N/A From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ren=E9?= Date: 18 Jan 2002 18:44:36 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp (Windows)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.141.71.130 X-Trace: 1011375789 newsfeed.sunrise.ch 762 195.141.71.130 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:24652 comp.lang.ada:19058 comp.lang.eiffel:5452 comp.lang.smalltalk:18137 Date: 2002-01-18T18:44:36+01:00 List-Id: Bob Bane writes: > I was particularly impressed with his last paragraph in the second > article. For some reason, he doesn't conclude that there's something > wrong with C++. Can't imagine why... Hmm, I read the below as "There is something wrong with C++!". Or were you just being ironic? > ---------BEGIN-QUOTE----------- > > I don't know about you, but there's something really scary to me about a > language where copying state from one object to another is this > complicated. By now, I suspect at least a dozen or two programmers have > contributed something new to this discussion. If it takes this many > programmers to write a simple assignment operator, think how complicated > writing code that actually does something meaningful must be! Bjarne Stroustrup often says that complexity is inevitable for a programming language that is widely used for many different tasks and big projects. It may start out simple, but as different user groups gets their stuff in, the complexity comes in the language, compiler, runtime system, libraries and/or user code. I don't know why CL isn't more popular, but starting anew (arc, dylan) to simplify and change some superficial features seems like a _lot_ of work and a good risk of ending up in the same spot years later. Everything doesn't have to be elegant, as long as there is a known approach/idiom for expressing it. -- Ren�