🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28774@sun.uucp>, landauer%morocco@Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) writes:
> point of view.  What makes this "syntax only" difference important to
> me is that the additional features of C++ (over C) are invoked using
> syntax that looks like the rest of C, while the object-oriented parts of
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Objective-C look like they were grafted on.

"Looks like" are the key words here.

	var1 << var2;

*looks like* C code which means "logically shift var1 left var2 bits".
However in C++ it COULD mean "put var2 onto outputStream var1".  C++
also uses ampersands (&) for more purposes than standard C does, and
more than I thought possible by any language, which can become very
confusing.  The list of these types of confusing uses of symbols can go
on.

The point is that some of the extensions to C by C++ can be extremely 
confusing until you carefully examine the context of some of these
symbols.  At least I know, at a glance, when a "message-send" (i.e. an
"object-oriented part") is occuring in the "grafted on" extensions of 
Objective-C.  I can't say the same for the "shoved in" extensions of C++.

Both C++ and Objective-C basically add object-oriented features to a
procedure oriented language.  Both allow the two approaches to be
intermixed.  Objective-C allows the user to see the difference, while
C++ forces the user to figure it out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Auer					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!ken		Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-8307				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-9981

"The views expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of my
employer, which by no means makes them incorrect."