🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "m" == mzhou01  <mzhou01@barney.poly.edu> writes:
m> C++ standardization people,
m> With all respect. I am not happy with the way the committe is 
m> modifying the C++ language. I think you people are enlarging the language 
m> by adding un-
m> necessary keywords to it. For example the boolean type, true, false keywords. 
m> I spoke to my university friends about this addendum and they feel the
m> say way as I do. Why do we need in boolean type? If it was really

Some of my university friends don't :-P

m> necessary Dennis Ritchie would have put it in C in the place. He didn't  
m> put it in because boolean can be easily create using the language itself, 
m> ie: the #define or emum, and Stroustrup didn't added in his second editon.

You cannot expect Bjarne Stroustrup's book about the C++ language to
contain information about what was not yet part of the language when
he wrote the book. Read ``The Design and Evolution of C++'' for more
up-to-date information (and the whys of certain extensions); same
author.

m> I think your guys are forgetting what made the C language so popular. It 
m> is it's compactness, elegance and flexibility. I agree #define and emum 
m> are not type safe, but they again C/C++ aren't intended to be used by 
m> fools. Stop trying to add stuff to C++ to make it idiot-proof.

Note that C++ is not C. Also, number of keywords is not nearly a measure
of compactness, elegance or flexibility.

I've also heard many C programmers say that the one thing they like most
in C++ is type-safety. However, perhaps the two most compelling reasons
for built-in boolean types are:
	. it's standard: hopefully libraries needing some boolean type
	                 will easily be mixable in the future,
	. it's overloadable (so would a user-defined bool class or
	                     enum type, but that leads to strange
	                     contortions with built-in operators).

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

I don't have that authority, but the number of keywords has never
been a problem to me.

m> Mike

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

Yes (team = ANSI X3J16 and ISO WG21). I don't think he gets the
`final say', but I'm quite sure his words are not taken lightly.

	Daveed



---
[ 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. ]