Subject: Re: wretched C++ (Was: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1997/04/29
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c++
Message-ID: <>

* Andrew Koenig
| So I can summarize the discussion this way:
| 	X: C++ is lousy because foo.
| 	Y: Foo is true of C, and will be true of any language descended from C.
| 	X: But foo is bad in C++ and not in C, and C++ has bar and baz,
| 	   and yer mother wears army shoes!
| Which is why I claim that no direct, rational response is possible.

let's make it:

    X: C++ is lousy because of FOO.

    Y: FOO/n is true of C, etc

    X: but n is a huge number!  C++ _multiplies_ most weaknesses of C by
       this huge number, and does very little to alleviate any others.

    Y: no direct, rational response is possible.

example from real life:

    X: junk food is lousy because of the fat and colesterol.

    Y: but your body needs fat and colesterol, and any food prepared for
       human beings will have to contain fat and colesterol.

    X: don't you get it?  it's an issue of the _amount_ of fat and

    Y: no direct, rational response is possible.

somehow, Andrew Koenig reminds me of the "nutrition guides" I found
prominently displayed at a MacDonald's some time ago.  however, I may
actually agree with him.  no direct, rational is possible when someone is
so consistently excellent at dogding the issues.
