On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:19:09 -0400 Nick Sabalausky <seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:51:19 +0200 > "Stuart" <stu...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 15:56:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: > > > Am 23.07.2012 14:49, schrieb Stuart: > > >> On Saturday, 21 July 2012 at 22:16:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> C++ is living in the 70's. > > >> > > >> Precisely what I have been thinking. It's a loose wrapper > > >> around > > >> assembly, nothing more. Certainly not the "high-level language" > > >> it's touted as. > > > > > > Only due to the lack of modules. > > > > > > Everything else is a pretty modern language I would say. > > > > Hardly. No RTTI. No GC. No properties. No events. No closures. No > > extension methods. No interfaces. No writable references. > > > > Null-terminated strings. Preprocessor. No reflection. Effectively > undefined sizes for primitive types. Undefined behavior galore. > Neither default initialization nor enforced initialization before > variable usage. No reference types (Foo& isn't what I mean). > Horrendous type syntax for mixed arrays/ptrs or functions ptrs, etc. > No forward references (or at least very limited). And a grammar that > forces compilation to be very, very slow. > Speaking of, I understand he had C++ in mind when he wrote this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOj3wDlr_BM