Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
From: Neo-LISPer (neo_lisper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/26/04
- Next message: Aaron Sloman: "Re: Poplog common lisp meets the gcl random tester"
- Previous message: Arthur Lemmens: "Re: ALU CLiki invaded by spam"
- In reply to: David Golden: "Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games"
- Next in thread: Kenny Tilton: "Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 25 Oct 2004 16:09:48 -0700
David Golden <david.golden@oceanfree.net> writes:
> You have posted the above explanation to the one newsgroup which did
> have that context, so, unless you repeated your "STILL sucks"
> clarification post to c.l.c++ and c.g.d.p.m and it just hasn't shown up
> in my newsfeed yet, I humbly suggest it might be a good idea to clarify
> on the other groups too...
Nay. Let's leave art open to interpretation. Besides, I meant what I wrote.
> > P.S. I'm not Mike Cox,
>
> Aha! But he would say that! ;-)
But I am Mike Cox! Thank Satan for Goedel.
- Next message: Aaron Sloman: "Re: Poplog common lisp meets the gcl random tester"
- Previous message: Arthur Lemmens: "Re: ALU CLiki invaded by spam"
- In reply to: David Golden: "Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games"
- Next in thread: Kenny Tilton: "Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
