From 4732149783031530045 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d733139e7969f81d X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d733139e7969f81d X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-24 02:49:28 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!rfg From: rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) Subject: Re: How relevant is ANSI C++? (Re: Is STL a good standard?) Message-ID: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 08:36:50 GMT Lines: 42 Xref: bga.com comp.std.c++:4559 comp.lang.c++:30309 Mr. Skoll is obviously not thinking about C++ in the right way. In article dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes: > >When I mentioned "special rules", I refer to the ARM -- for example, >see the table on page 306, which defines 15 types of constructors, >destructors, conversion functions, operator functions, friend >functions and other member functions, and describes whether or not >they are inherited, can be virtual, can have a return type, can be a >member or friend and are generated by default. This, IMO, is >egregious. It's terrible to force software developers to remember or >refer to this table... Think of it as job security. If you can memorize all these details, you'll have a job as a C++ programmer for life. >... There's no doubt that C++ is more efficient than >Lisp in terms of run-time, but I have grave doubts that it's more >efficient in programmer-time... Think of it as job security. >... One of my gripes with C++ is the amount of detail. The >ARM describes a baroque language with thousands of minutiae which >certainly bedevil someone learning the language (and, I'd bet, >experienced programmers too.) Think of it as job security. >... but in the effort to maintain backward-compatibility, all of >these things would still have to be available, making compiler-writing >a bit of a nightmare... Think of it as job security... for implementors! :-) -- -- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting ------------------- ---- domain addr: rfg@netcom.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ---- ---- uucp addr: ...!uunet!netcom!rfg ------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -