Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.wwa.com!rcm!rmartin
From: rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)
Subject: Re: Has C++ had its day?
References: <3q7tb1$1ct@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> <1995Jun1.171508.13249@glv.cen.encompass.com> <1995Jun2.122753.23527@mr.med.ge.com> <3qnt36$djm@News1.mcs.com>
Organization: R. C. M. Consulting Inc. 708-918-1004
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 01:19:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Jun5.011932.2530@rcmcon.com>
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:32105 comp.lang.smalltalk:24285

I recently posted this to the net, but it seems somehow to have gotten
lost.  So I will repeat it for those who care.

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>C++ is a FROG...:)

>...C++ is just too slimy...


Jim then shows us a C+@ program.

>class Box {
>int length;
>int width;
>method (theArea) area ()
>{
>        theArea = length * width;
>}
>};

The corresponding C++ program

class Box
{
  public:
    int area() const {return length * width;}

  private:
    int length;
    int width;
};

These two look extremely similar.   Mr Flemming raves about how awful C++
is in comparison to C+@, and then shows us a C+@ program that is almost
indistiguishable from the corresponding C++ program in an effort to show
us why C+@ is so much better than C++.  

Is there any more concrete example that you can offer, Mr. Flemming, to
back up your assertions about the Froglike Sliminess of 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++
