Matt Austern (·······@isolde.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
: ········@Bayou.UH.EDU (········@bayou.uh.edu) writes:
: > In numerous languages (like Haskell) pointers are never needed,
: > and you can happily manipulate trees and other traditionally
: > "pointer-dependent" data structures with greater ease than
: > you could in languages which require pointers. In other languages
: > the use of the aforementioned pointers are only required when
: > you need certain data structures like trees (ie: Ada). In
: > C however, you need pointers for tasks which do not require
: > them -- modifying arguments to functions!
: In C++, however, you don't need pointers for that task. Why pick
: on C's deficiencies in an article that isn't even being posted
: to a C newsgroup? This article is posted to comp.lang.c++ and
: comp.lang.lisp; neither of those newsgroups deals with C.
Oh you want C++ deficiencies? Well off the top of my head:
1) Type checking is *STILL* a joke
2) They still haven't fixed the problems with arrays
not being first class data types -- check out
the problems with template functions.
3) Multiple inheritance. Need I say more?
4) Name mangling.
5) Pointers are still laughable.
6) As if the trouble with pointers isn't enough, references
were added with even more danger!
7) You can typecast yourself to hell and back.
8) The whole concept is flawed (OO concepts pasted onto
an unreadable "portable assembler"?).
There you go -- take your pick.
BTW, these were off the top of my head.
--
Cya,
Ahmed
Brains for dinner, brains for lunch
Brains for breakfast, brains for brunch
Brains at every single meal
Why can't we have some guts?
"Brain Eaters" by the Misfits