Windows NT is THE evidence of the market's rejection of UNIX. Nobody can argue that NT didn't trounce UNIX
Windows NT's "trouncing" of UNIX is more an indication of Microsoft's market MANIPULATION: Microsoft used various means, many of which nefarious, to leverage its monopoly to shoehorn its way into the server market. Hardware costs were also a factor: NT ran on relatively cheap x86 processors -- while Unix, at the time, did not. I don't dispute that NT was a passable server OS; in fact, to get back to my point in the GP, many of its best attributes where derived from Unix -- as Bill Gates acknowledged:
Well, Microsoft stepped back and looked at that situation and said that the best thing for us might be to start from scratch: build a new system, focus on having a lot of the great things about Unix, a lot of the great things about Windows, and also being a file-sharing server that would have the same kind of performance that, up until that point, had been unique to Novell's Netware.
And through Windows NT, you can see it throughout the design. In a weak sense, it is a form of Unix. There are so many of the design decisions that have been influenced by that environment.
Regarding Linux, rather than improved usability, cost was the primary factor why it gained market share from Unix: other than support, Linux is free; and, as with Windows, Linux runs on x86. Actually, in terms of usability, features, and robustness, Solaris rivals, if not surpasses, any Linux distribution.
Even if I accept your specious argument that market place acceptance is predicated on the desktop presence, that still doesn't imply that Unix hasn't had a strong impact on the market. Microsoft Windows, especially since Windows NT, has been greatly influenced by Unix -- a point even Bill Gates acknowlegdes.
Note the Oxford English Dictionary on ironic: "happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this."
Although perhaps not quite as pleasing to anglophiles, Merriam-Webster also supports this sense for irony:
3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity
Granted C++ is a complex and feature-rich language; but, the majority of that complexity is not imposed on you -- it there to be used at your discretion. C is a subset of C++; so, it's quite possible to write essentially C code with only the elements of C++ added that you consider useful. For example, templates are a powerful and labor-saving C++ mechanism for writing a family of classes that share a common interface but whose data-members don't have a common parent; however, it's quite possible to do something similar in C++ using the old-hat C constructs of structs and unions.
I find the contention that because C++ can be complex that it should be restricted a little defeatist. It's analogous to saying, because most people don't use, or understand, math past introductory college algebra, why even teach higher-level mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows NT's "trouncing" of UNIX is more an indication of Microsoft's market MANIPULATION: Microsoft used various means, many of which nefarious, to leverage its monopoly to shoehorn its way into the server market. Hardware costs were also a factor: NT ran on relatively cheap x86 processors -- while Unix, at the time, did not. I don't dispute that NT was a passable server OS; in fact, to get back to my point in the GP, many of its best attributes where derived from Unix -- as Bill Gates acknowledged:
Regarding Linux, rather than improved usability, cost was the primary factor why it gained market share from Unix: other than support, Linux is free; and, as with Windows, Linux runs on x86. Actually, in terms of usability, features, and robustness, Solaris rivals, if not surpasses, any Linux distribution.
Even if I accept your specious argument that market place acceptance is predicated on the desktop presence, that still doesn't imply that Unix hasn't had a strong impact on the market. Microsoft Windows, especially since Windows NT, has been greatly influenced by Unix -- a point even Bill Gates acknowlegdes.
Although perhaps not quite as pleasing to anglophiles, Merriam-Webster also supports this sense for irony:
Actually, the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003 was ratified unanimously by by the US Senate in 2006
Granted C++ is a complex and feature-rich language; but, the majority of that complexity is not imposed on you -- it there to be used at your discretion. C is a subset of C++; so, it's quite possible to write essentially C code with only the elements of C++ added that you consider useful. For example, templates are a powerful and labor-saving C++ mechanism for writing a family of classes that share a common interface but whose data-members don't have a common parent; however, it's quite possible to do something similar in C++ using the old-hat C constructs of structs and unions.
I find the contention that because C++ can be complex that it should be restricted a little defeatist. It's analogous to saying, because most people don't use, or understand, math past introductory college algebra, why even teach higher-level mathematics.