User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Interview: Vernor Vinge

Interview: Vernor Vinge

Posted Dec 11, 2008 14:15 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)
In reply to: Interview: Vernor Vinge by ncm
Parent article: Interview: Vernor Vinge

> This is not for lack of problems in C++; a language with a quarter the complexity but equal power would be no great feat, if only it gave up the C subset.

But isn't the C subset what enabled C++ to gain such an unshiftable foothold in the first place?


(Log in to post comments)

Interview: Vernor Vinge

Posted Dec 11, 2008 16:16 UTC (Thu) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link]

In reality we have to deal with things like practicality. Using the basic syntax of c allowed c++ to gain a foothold quicker.

I think there are plenty of areas where c++ could be cleaned up. The proposed c++0x adds new features and seems to make a lot of things nicer but it has made the deliberate choice of not sacrificing backward compatibility when doing so. The auto keyword , initializer lists , and allowing constructors to delegate to others should make it a much nicer language though.

It's almost a pity they didn't take the next step though :(

I like c++ the most of any language I've regularly used so far. (I really must get into O'Caml one of these days).

Mind you the use of indentation for blocks in python does appeal to me. I'd probably only replace the {,} blocks with indentation though and keep the () parts of the syntax. I wonder how much harder the parsers job is made by the use of indentation for blocks instead of braces.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds