🚀 go-pugleaf

C++ standardization people,

With all respect. I am not happy with the way the committe is 
modifying the C++ language. I think you people are enlarging the language 
by adding un-
necessary keywords to it. For example the boolean type, true, false keywords. 
I spoke to my university friends about this addendum and they feel the
say way as I do. Why do we need in boolean type? If it was really
necessary Dennis Ritchie would have put it in C in the place. He didn't  
put it in because boolean can be easily create using the language itself, 
ie: the #define or emum, and Stroustrup didn't added in his second editon.
I think your guys are forgetting what made the C language so popular. It 
is it's compactness, elegance and flexibility. I agree #define and emum 
are not type safe, but they again C/C++ aren't intended to be used by 
fools. Stop trying to add stuff to C++ to make it idiot-proof. 

Basically I browsed the 57 C++ keywords web page and was disappointed. 
Well for those of you who has authority in setting the standard, keep in 
mind that C's success is due to its flexibility, compactness, and elegance. 
Let C inspire C++. Don't turn C++ back to Pascal or PL/I. 



Mike

P.S. Is Stroustrup on the stardardization team? Does he get the final
     say since it is his language?



 


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]