Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> writes: > Sometimes, C++ is just the right tool for the job, despite all its > warts.... C++'s object semantics (guaranteed destruction, scoping, > etc) can sometimes work very well when you need the speed of a > compiled language, but don't want to be quite as low-level as C. > > In this case, C++ is certainly not a better tool for the job than C.
The stuff C++ adds to C is a mix of good and bad, and it's reasonably possible to use just the good stuff and ignore the bad. At that point you've got a pure improvement over C, although a lot of C's shortcomings can't be papered over and still remain. Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was really trying to supply was polymorphism. C++ programs these days apparently tend to use template-based generics rather than objects and inheritance for that purpose. I've never programmed in Ada but I'm intrigued by these articles: http://adahome.com/Ammo/cpp2ada.html http://www.adaic.org/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy. I'd certainly consider it as an alternative to C or C++ if I had to write a big program in a traditional procedural language. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
