In <[🔎] 20090623111601.GP19607@wasteland.homelinux.net>, Jochen Schulz wrote: >明覺: >> thanks, but before I got the benifit of so many languages, I have been >> tired of learning them, maybe it cannot be called "learning", it's >> just some parallel memory, for none of them bring new concepts to >> C/C++. > >This is plain wrong. >How do you do closures in C/C++? Function-objects. (Examples in STL.) >What about higher >order functions, Function-objects plus tuple types. (Tuple types in latest C++ standard, I think; In Boost anyway.) >pattern matching, That same way it's done it other languages, either statically (in C++ using templates) or slowly and painfully. >dynamic typing? Bah. As long as the language is strongly typed, I prefer all my types to be static. Type errors should be detected before run time. [I'm only willing to let value errors slip until run time so I can accept user input. ;)] Still. C++ is neither strongly nor dynamically typed, which is quite unfortunate, but are language choices. In comparision, it would be fairly impossible to "do" weak, static typing in Ruby or Python, too. I don't agree with the OP, though. Languages like Perl, Python, PHP, and Ruby allow you to trade off (very little) run time or memory for (usually a lot) of man-hours. CPU cycles and RAM is much cheaper than Labor costs at those ratios, and *all* of those languages have some way of calling into C/C++ for things that just have to be written in those languages. I think the OP need to spend some time with Haskel, Erlang, Prolog, and Lisp. <tease>Only *then* can you truly learn to *hate* non C-based languages. ;)</tease> -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.