Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!mole-end!mat
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <1995Jan5.102240.26584@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>
Organization: :
References: <D16Ho3.4BE@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> <3e2bj6$43a@network.ucsd.edu> <19941231.180912.425222.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 10:22:40 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:106110 comp.lang.lisp:16290

In article <19941231.180912.425222.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>, dhanley@picasso (David Hanley) writes:

> Robert J. Brown (rj@wariat.org) wrote:
> 
> : C and C++ programmers are rather proud of themselves in thinking that they
> : will always know when an object is no longer being referenced by anything
> : else, ...
 ...
>         ...  How does this sound:
 ...
>         "Lisp programmers use lisp because they are too stupid to understand
> that computers acutally use numbers at the basic level.  They are unable
> to understand the math and logic involved in programming.  ...

>         Do I really think that?  No.  It doesn't sound any worse than what
> you said, however.

>         Did it ever occur to you that GC was not instilled into the
> C++ language for a reason?  That there are many good reasons for
> preferring manual memory management?

The existance of this recurring discussion might be taken as proof that
these answer to your rhetorical questions is ``No.''
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
	(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
