Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!hookup!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!in1.uu.net!news.ssd.intel.com!ornews.intel.com!news From: "Patrick D. Logan" <patrick_d_logan@ccm.jf.intel.com> Newsgroups: misc.jobs.offered,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c-cat,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,alt.syntax.tactical,comp.lang.misc,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Beginner to C/C++ looking for some good books Date: 23 Aug 1995 20:49:29 GMT Organization: Intel/Personal Conferencing Lines: 54 Message-ID: <41g48p$3ep@ornews.intel.com> References: <0sh80405$w$7@news.iostream.com> <401oqj$n1m@natasha.rmii.com> <40b4i2$egf@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <brockmanDDLJDL.2IJ@netcom.com> <41alha$b1g@cisunix1.dfci.harvard.edu> <41d2pc$jnk@ornews.intel.com> <19950823T095956Z@naggum.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: pdlogan2.jf.intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b4 (Windows; I; 32bit) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au misc.jobs.offered:189147 comp.lang.c:109975 comp.lang.c++:120194 comp.object:30572 comp.lang.eiffel:8866 alt.syntax.tactical:911 comp.lang.misc:17057 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:127 Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> wrote: >[Godfrey Degamo] > >| Why is C++ philosophically unsound? I am planning on learning it, if >| they ever standardize the language. (Have they done so yet?) > >[Patrick D. Logan] > >| Everything is philosophically unsound in software. It is all a matter >| of degrees and tradeoffs. > >degrees and tradeoffs do not make "philosophically unsound", unless you >work in an environment where you make a "tradeoff" between poison and >nutrition To go further off track with this analogy: A "poison" is something taken at a greater rate and quantity than the body can handle. Water can be a poison. Cyanide can be taken at a small enough quantity and rate not to kill. So draw that analogy with C++ vs. something else! >I'm amazed that so many C++ proponents are such an anti-theoretical, >uneducated bunch of pseudo-intellectuals. Now wait a minute. I have been using Common Lisp and Scheme much longer than C++. And I have been through hell with C++ since 1988. I used Tek Smalltalk a bit in 1987, ST/V a bit in 1991, and then again since early 1994. Before all that I used various other languages. (Anyone remember "Mainsail"?) I am not truly a C++ proponent. I use it a lot because a lot of interesting things are done by groups that for better or worse choose C++. My point is that it is possible to use C++ successfully (if painfully), and there are *compelling* reasons to use it. My point about trade-offs is that there are no "pure" programming languages. They all have their faults, and I have sure seen people exploit the faults of every language I've used. (You should see some of the Lisp Machine code! You should see some of the Smalltalk system code!) Don't call me *uneducated* when it comes to programming languages! -- mailto:Patrick_D_Logan@ccm.jf.intel.com Intel/Personal Conferencing Division (503) 264-9309, FAX: (503) 264-3375 "Poor design is a major culprit in the software crisis... ..Beyond the tenets of structured programming, few accepted... standards stipulate what software systems should be like [in] detail..." -Bruce W. Weide, IEEE Computer, August 1995