In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Advocates of languages and programming methodologies sometimes compare >the current version of their favorite language to an old version of >their disfavored language, resulting in skewed comparisons. For >example, Conway writes > >"Interpreted languages do two things much better than compiled >languages. > >Firstly, they provide more sophisticated programming tools and support >for more advanced programming techniques. For example, Perl provides >hashed look-up tables and arbitrary-length arrays as core data types. C >doesn't even have a proper string type. Likewise, Perl's data sorting >facilities are integrated into the language, so the sorting criteria >are directly programmable. > >Having all the basic tools of programming (i.e. high-level data types >and common algorithms) built into the language, rather than having to >build them yourself, means that you need to write less code to solve a >given problem." > >I think most of the advanced programming techniques he mentions are >part of the C++ Standard Library. >
In principle, yes--and that's certainly how C++ fans typically feel. Frankly, Perl (and Python ...) implementations remain more polished and mature than what the STL and allies offer. I agree in general that people often say, "I like Y in year N better than I liked X in year N-6, therefore Y is better than N." Damian's not particularly prone to that error, though, and I think, in the case at hand, C++ really *does* continue to lag. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
