Re: [OT] C++ question re. dyn. mem.
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:00:11 +0200, MJM wrote:
> I learned last night that there is a 3rd Ed. Evidently things have
> changed and the complex language has gotten more complex -
Right.
> trying to be all things to all people. If this continues, C++ will be
> too complex for normal programmers.
C++ is a complex beast, and it has always been. However, much of that
complexity was introduced to remain compatible with C. You should like
that?
> C++ should be backwards compatible, so I think my 2nd Ed. suits my
> needs.
C++ was finalized in 1998. There was nothing to be compatible to before
that date. Not even C++ 2nd. Ed. from 1991 (?), even if that book was
written by a thousand Stroustrups.
Yes, I know what you will answer - standards are for language experts, not
for the programmers. REAL programmers don't care. They continue to apply
their C patterns which served them well for years. They are the _real_
gurus as opposed to that C++ dimwits. Stop being childish. Even C has
changed in the past, and will continue to do so.
> I use C++ features for templates, encapsulation, STL, inheritance (not
> much), and "objectification". I do low level stuff, so I want to use
> the C capabilites. If the C capabilities are removed from future
> versions of C++, then I will recode for C.
You obviously don't understand the point of the new cast operators. They
don't take power away from you, in fact they give you more power than
before.
--
Best Regards, | Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
Sebastian | your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: