🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <89603$4146b71a$3e15a474$31571@freeler.nl>, Adrian
<aa@aa.aa> wrote:
> 
> "Alwyn" <dt015a1979@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:130920041428190982%dt015a1979@mac.com.invalid...
> > In article <e920b$41454811$3e15a39c$11038@freeler.nl>, Adrian
> > <aa@aa.aa> wrote:
> >
> > > Use C# and solve your C++ limitation problems. It takes C++ one
> evolutionary
> > > step further.
> >
> > An interesting point of view. It's like saying that C++ takes C one
> > evolutionary step further. But it isn't true: C++ is a wholly new
> > language,
> 
> That is not what Stroustrup said. See his Preface
> to the First Edition. He calls it a "superset" of C :)

Did he say that? I think the original C with Classes may have been a
superset of C, as is indeed also Objective-C, but I very much doubt
that C++ was that even then. Since then, of course, C++ has moved even
further away from its parent - some would say too far.

In the meantime, C has been pursuing its own evolution, sometimes in
the same direction as C++, sometimes away from it.

But to come back to your original statement, I would still maintain
that C# is derived from Java and has little to do with C++, apart from
certain syntactical similarities - I suppose a Chomskyan might call
that 'surface structure'. I don't know an awful lot about .NET, but I
see no reason why C# and C++ cannot peacefully coexist within it, each
doing what it does best. In the case of C++, I imagine that would be
the lower-level stuff, the 'glue' if you like, and maybe also
applications where performance is of the essence.


Alwyn