NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/lang/cplus/16591

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
From: [e-mail] (John MAX Skaller)
Subject: Re: Criticisms Wanted
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:33:05 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Brockman) writes:
>
>IMHO C++ is just one more modular language in this respect, sales pitches
>notwithstanding.  FORTRAN made "software components" realizable in the 50's.
>

    Subroutine libraries are not in the same 'class' as class libraries.
C++ is at leat one ( I reckon 2 ) orders of magnitude 'better' than
Fortran. Although classes can have bugs, once these are iron out
the compiler does a good job of ensuring you cannot *misuse* the class
as easily as you can incorrectly sequence a series of function calls
or mix up the parameters.

    Compare even C strings (you can have all the functions you
want but as far as Ican see you are always writing assembler) with
C++ strings (with constructors and destructors to automate
storage management).


--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         [e-mail]
    Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------