Message-ID: <35F9D96E.127C262C@montana.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:16:14 -0600
From: bowman <bowman AT montana DOT com>
Reply-To: bowman AT montana DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "djgpp AT delorie DOT com" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Namespaces
References: <35F8414B DOT C559D94D AT unb DOT ca> <1998091123580600 DOT TAA20493 AT ladder03 DOT news DOT aol DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Myknees wrote:
> 
> But Stroustrup seems to support Endlisnis when he says in the 3rd ed,
> in the "C  and C++" section, "...good C programs tend to be C++ programs.  

Prior to C++, good C programmers were using many of the concepts, but
the implementation could get ugly, with all the famous pointers to
arrays of pointers to functions returning pointers to ..... puzzles. As
I recall, a hot topic in a group like the CSIG of the Boston Computer
Society was, "ok, this is what we are doing, now, how are we going to
extend the language to make it comprehensible, and to encourage newer
programmers to do the right thing?" 

I just don't see the big paradigm shift some claim, nor do I see where
C++ enforces good coding practices in a poor programmer. I use both, and
enjoy some of the features of C++, but I tend to see the C++ constructs
in terms of the underlying code. I am curious though, if someone who
learned C++ as the first language is confronted with a body of well
written C code, is their first question, "what the hell is going on
here?"  with all these static functions and variables, structures
getting filled out on the fly, pointers to functions whizzing around,
and all the other groundwork for encapsulation, polymorphism, virtual
functions, inheritance, and all the rest of the buzz words.