🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alwyn" <dt015a1979@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:140920041303157454%dt015a1979@mac.com.invalid...
> 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

Hi Alwyn,

You seem te be well informed. As you will also know C++.NET (which
I wouldn't advise anybody to use) and C# can be used side by side. So
indeed both can be used for what they can do best.

Regards,
Adrian.