Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!boole!jka
From: jka@boole.com (John Ahlstrom)
Subject: Is C++ the 386 of Programming languages? (Was C++ Productivity)
Message-ID: <1995Feb1.183106.20450@boole.com>
Keywords: C++ Productivity Smalltalk
Organization: Boole & Babbage, Inc.
References: <1995Jan23.193745.7044@boole.com> <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <1995Jan25.201226.28856@rcmcon.com> <jim.fleming.75.0003AF13@bytes.com> <1995Jan31.145401.8972@rcmcon.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:31:06 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:110390 comp.lang.smalltalk:20187 comp.object:25937

Can I validly (or even usefully) infer from this that at least one person 
thinks that C++ bears a similar relation to C as the 386 (et seq) bear to 
the 8086?

And that C++'s success bears the same relation to the success of the 386?


In <1995Jan31.145401.8972@rcmcon.com> rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin) writes:
Much deleted


>Quite a bit.   If C++ had not been based upon C, it would have been
>just another new language.  On the other hand, C++ does not owe ALL
>its success to its familial ties to C.  Other languages have attempted
>to mix OOP and C, but none have fared as well as C++.



>-- 
>Robert Martin       | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
>Object Mentor Assoc.| rmartin@rcmcon.com  |   Object Oriented Analysis
>2080 Cranbrook Rd.  | Tel: (708) 918-1004 |   Object Oriented Design
>Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 |   C++
-- 
John Ahlstrom			I can neither confirm nor deny 
Boole & Babbage			that these opinions are or are not
3131 Zanker Rd			held by anyone else.
San Jose CA 95134
