True enough on the C++, however, this is actually viewed as a design flaw by many, as it creates ambiguity in the language and other problems.
A lot of people never really think about this, as it's easy enough to pick implementations that makes sense... but have you ever seen code that one minute tries to use cout, or cerr, and the next min fprintfs to stout n stderr? That's solvable enough, but what about creating an object from a c header with a function that exit(1)'s, which is obviously inappropriate, and now should be handled differently... or when people mix using C code and methodology with C++. Everbody's been stuck debugging code at some point in their life that somehow has a linked list of objects in it (the linked list being started with *my_list, the objects being improperly instantiated somewhere, and you with a debugger and a big pot of coffee.
This of course is not to detract from the merits of C++
Just Another Perl Backpacker | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
You seem to be using C++ synonymously with C, when I think it is quite case sensitive here. C++ was the C community's answer to Object Orientation. Your node suggests that some other paradigm will eventually overtake Object Orientation, which is true enough, but the result will be a different C variant, it would seem silly (at least to me) to tack on another backwardly compatible paradigm to C (C+=2?). | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |