> (a) looking for problems This is a boolshit argument - you get problems with C too. Big problems with "evil macros", memory leaks, resource dead locks, pointer arithmetic, stack corruption etc. It's a matter of expertise, regardless of the language.
Sure, the C way seems transparent and obvious, but complex problems require more involved solutions. Solutions that abstract building blocks in order to manage this complexity. Abstraction mecanisms are much better with C++. The same goes for encapsulation - OO way provides several useful mechanisms than "static".
> (b) a C++ bigot that can't see what he is writing is really just C anyway The point Stroustrup makes is that one can use a subset of C++. It's a valid thing. However, OO concepts are native to the language, so no function pointer assignments are required to implement abstraction. No "just return a handle" hacks are required to have encapsulation. Why not use a language that natively supports and checks for polymorphism, abstraction and encapsulation?
take a look at www.ritlabs.com - they have a piece of software called The Bat. It's a small, very fast and unbelievably powerful win32 e-mail client. POP/IMAP/PGP/filters/muliple accounts/templates just to name a few features.
Slashdot Mirror
> (a) looking for problems
This is a boolshit argument - you get problems with C too. Big problems with "evil macros", memory leaks, resource dead locks, pointer arithmetic, stack corruption etc. It's a matter of expertise, regardless of the language.
Sure, the C way seems transparent and obvious, but complex problems require more involved solutions. Solutions that abstract building blocks in order to manage this complexity. Abstraction mecanisms are much better with C++. The same goes for encapsulation - OO way provides several useful mechanisms than "static".
> (b) a C++ bigot that can't see what he is writing is really just C anyway
The point Stroustrup makes is that one can use a subset of C++. It's a valid thing. However, OO concepts are native to the language, so no function pointer assignments are required to implement abstraction. No "just return a handle" hacks are required to have encapsulation. Why not use a language that natively supports and checks for polymorphism, abstraction and encapsulation?
Now, all of this is described much better in a "Conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup" by Bill Venners here:
Part 1: The C++ Style Sweet Spot http://www.artima.com/intv/goldilocks.html
Part 2: Modern C++ Style http://www.artima.com/intv/modern.html
Part 3: Abstraction and Efficiency http://www.artima.com/intv/abstreffi.html
> So, when will Dell begin carrying AMD?
Only when Dell finally gets out of Intel's bed.
s0lar
s0lar