Re: discussing C evolution
- From: Ian Collins <ian-news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:15:36 +1200
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins a écrit :It has been pointed out elsethread that C would require the same baggage
jacob navia wrote:
Whether this nightmare is acceptable or not is a matter of opinion--
but
it strikes me as a whole new class of nightmare that C never had to
deal
with before. Like anything, C has its strenths and weaknesses and
one of
the strengths has always been the relative lack of nasty surprises.
No surprise here either, if you do not use this feature. Contrary to C++
all this is completely optional. The behavior of old programs and of
programs written not using this features is not affected.
You appear unable of understanding the simple fact that "all this" is
optional in C++ as well.
In another subthread we had this argument already. It is impossible to
dissociate operator overloading from the object oriented framework in
C++. Some operators need a class to be defined, and the implementation
in C++ of operator overloading lacks essential features like
multi-dimensional array indexing, differentiation between read/write
array access and others.
to implement operator overloading. You have to have an object to
operate on! How would yo implement a = b+c on a plain struct without
the means of constructing a temporary object?
The simple point I'm trying to make is you can write C style procedural
code in C++ without any run time support or object related baggage. All
'advanced' features have a cost, paying that cost is the programmer's
choice.
--
Ian Collins.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: discussing C evolution
- From: jacob navia
- Re: discussing C evolution
- References:
- Re: discussing C evolution
- From: jacob navia
- Re: discussing C evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: First program in C - what is going on with function returns?
- Next by Date: Re: discussing C evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: discussing C evolution
- Next by thread: Re: discussing C evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|