From: ···@teco.net
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <BITMEADC.97Feb17164229@Alcatel.com.au>
"Dann Corbit" <·······@solutionsiq.com> starts a C++/Lisp war...

>What a load of crap.  If you are talking about 'return on investment' C++
>is absurdly higher than Common Lisp.  

No it's not. Not by a long shot.

>Look at the amount of development
>that is going on in C++ and compare it with what is going on in Lisp.  

What exactly does that prove??

>Only
>a fool will thing they will get a higher ROI from a study of Lisp, which is
>at least as difficult to master as C++.  

No it's not.

>Go to a bookstore, and see how
>much effort is being put forth to provide C++ instruction, compared to
>Lisp.  

Show's how much more difficult C++ is that it needs so many books to
explain it.

>Will you be able to use your Lisp skills on every platform you might
>need to work on?  

Yes, definitely.

>Look at the tools that are available for C++ compared to
>Lisp.  Will you be able to pull a big pile of Lisp code into your design
>tool and automatically create object diagrams from it?  

Yes, of course.

>On dozens of
>platforms?  

Sure.

>Yes, I do realize that Smalltalk and Lisp are viable tools that
>do answer real-life business problems.  Sometimes they are the best tool
>for the job.  Just less often than C++.  

Wrong.

>How many trained programming
>resources does a typical organization have for C++ verses those
>alternatives?  

What does that prove?

>Neither Smalltalk nor Lisp will ever have the following 

What does that prove?

>nor
>the utility that C++ does.

Wrong.
 
>As always, all this stuff is IMO - YMMV.

If it's just your opinion, then why go around stating this crap as facts?