| |||||||||||||
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequateSobotka: Why GIMP is inadequatePosted Jan 14, 2011 18:32 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)In reply to: Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate by paulj Parent article: Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate
Generics have a sound body of type theory behind them though.C++ templates have been studied by type theorists too, see for example this paper. Boxing types - I don't see a problem with that for OOP.C++ is not only object-oriented, and in fact, containers are very often used for built-in types like int. Boxing these is ridiculously inefficient. Re implicit destructors for automatic variables. True, that requires language support. OTOH, C++ allowing automatic storage objects is one of those things that lead to subtle corner-cases, ISTR...Like what? I always found implicitly called destructors to be a boon. Much more so than, say, Java's finally blocks. Alas, YMMV and as you already said, we should probably just agree to disagree :).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||