httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Phillips <>
Subject Re: the C++ disaster (was Re: Source code - optimised assembler)
Date Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:52:29 GMT
[Sorry in advance for relative off-topicness.]

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:

> It is worth noting a couple of things here. First, he doesn't say that
> C++ in Mozilla was a bad idea, only that it was a bad idea in the cross
> platform stuff. Now, ask yourself what that means in the context of
> Mozilla. That's right! It means UI. We don't have any UI. So, what he
> didn't say, but clearly implied, was that C++ was a good idea everywhere
> else. Which is to say, in all the kind of code Apache is. 

I can tell you with extreme confidence that not only is he not talking
only about UI, but in *no way* is he implying that C++ was a good idea
everywhere else.  I've spoken with him about this specifically.  It's hard
to misinterpret "colossal cost."

> Another point he makes is that C++ may be object oriented, but that
> doesn't make people program it that way (or he may be making the point
> that C can be programmed in an object oriented way, but I assume not
> because that is true only in an academic sense).

He's saying that abstraction and encapsulation have a lot more to
do with the programmer than the programming language.  In other words,
he's saying both, but I see more of the one that you're assuming he's
not saying.

I hate to act as interpreter, but that was a pretty gross
misrepresentation ("clearly implied?" Come on, I ask you to run
that interpretation by, well, anyone else in the world, including
jwz.  He didn't say a single positive thing about C++! Where's the
clear implication that "C++ is a good idea" in that?)

Paul Phillips      | These pages look best if you come over and view them on
Cat Juggler        | my monitor.
<> |     -- the essence of the modern web
+1 206 447 1595    |--------* *--------

View raw message