Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!nagle
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
Message-ID: <nagleD35J1H.Kp0@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <19950127.093932.289762.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU> <DJOHNSON.95Jan28152443@arnold.ucsd.edu> <D35AIp.A12@research.att.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 05:24:52 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:109774 comp.lang.smalltalk:20017 comp.object:25767

bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>djohnson@arnold.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes
> > Actually, to be honest, one of the things I dislike most about C++
> > is the rabid unthinking worship of it.
>Huh? C++? ``rabid unthinking worship.''
>You must be talking of some cult language.

    How about "lemming-like rush to the abyss", then?

    You really can have only one language today.  It's a market issue;
you have to go with the language for which the stuff on the market has
interfaces.  (Yes, there are portable interface schemes, like SOM, but
there's always a problem with the interface for the less-popular 
languages being inferior or out of date.)  Right now, that language
is C.  C++ has enough compatibility with C to make it the only choice
for many purposes.  The quality of the language is essentially irrelevant.
     
					John Nagle
