From: Roy Smith on 4 Aug 2010 22:56
In article <i3cqia$82r$2(a)lust.ihug.co.nz>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <i3bseh$kfm$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > The problem has nothing to do with the relative merits of the
> > languages. The problem is inertia.
> So how was C++ able to get popular in the first place? And how was Java able
> to grab some share from it?
C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
popular. It is a superset of C. Whatever that may mean from a
technical standpoint, it made the language feel safe and comfortable and
low-risk to managers. From a more technical standpoint, it had the very
real advantage of being able to include all the C system headers and
link against C system libraries.
As for Java, that's easy. You could launch Java applets from inside a
web browser. In those days, anything related to the web was a one-way
express ticket to fame and fortune.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 5 Aug 2010 06:33
In message <7xocdi56cp.fsf(a)ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin wrote:
> I'd say the Ada standardizers went to a great deal of trouble to specify
> and document stuff that other languages simply leave undefined, leaving
> developers relying on implementation-specific behavior that's not part
> of the standard.
OK, I have a copy of K&R 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point
out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not
specified in that document?
> Ada itself is not necessarily more complicated.
It is. Look at its baroque type structure. Hint: why is
type A is B;
a syntax error?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 5 Aug 2010 06:34
In message <roy-6BCFA7.22564104082010(a)news.panix.com>, Roy Smith wrote:
> C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
> popular. It is a superset of C.
Actually, it never was.
From: Paul Rudin on 5 Aug 2010 07:20
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> writes:
> In message <roy-6BCFA7.22564104082010(a)news.panix.com>, Roy Smith wrote:
>> C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
>> popular. It is a superset of C.
> Actually, it never was.
Wondering off topic a bit - I am reminded of something I once read in
some MS blurb... it described something as an "extended subset" of some
standard or another. (Think about it :))
From: Edward Diener on 5 Aug 2010 11:31
On 8/2/2010 5:42 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
>> Python is an object oriented langage (OOL). The Python main
>> implementation is written in pure and "old" C90. Is it for historical
>> C is not an OOL and C++ strongly is. I wonder if it wouldn't be more
>> suitable to implement an OOL with another one.
>> Has it ever been planned to rewrite in C++ the historical implementation
>> (of course in an object oriented design) ?
> I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I
> read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up
> in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone.
It must be because we can not be as phenomenally intelligent as you
evidently are from your comment.