Re: OT: C++, yuck!

[Thomas S. Urban]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 13:55:35 -0600, Mark A. Flacy sent 0.8K bytes:
> >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas S Urban <address@hidden> writes:
> Thomas> 
> Thomas> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:59:48 -0500, Greg A. Woods sent 2.8K bytes:
> >> "dynamic binding" isn't a feature you could ever possibly decide on
> >> needing up front for any kind of project you'd ever even get close to
> >> justifying C for!  Get real!
> Thomas> 
> Thomas> You're wrong. Read what I wrote again.  Projects I am working on 
> satisfy
> Thomas> the description I gave.  Then again, I'm not real, but I'm working on
> Thomas> it.
> 
> In this case, he's correct.  After all, if you need dynamic binding, then
> you can't use C and therefore can't justify using it for said project.  :-)

He's only possible correct in the context left after my original words
are removed.  This is what I wrote:

<snip>
> > > That is silly.  What if you could justify C, except you need
> > > dynamic binding too? Then could you justify C++?  What about you
> > > need all the features of C, with generic programming as well?
> > > Then is C++ back in
<snip>

Emphasis on the word *except*.  Is your parser broken, or is my mastery
of the english langauge failing me?


-- 
Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science.
                -- Randy Goebel