🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <463j91$ac1@holly.aa.net>, boutell@boutell.com (Thomas Boutell) writes:

-=)> I recently heard a rumor that the addition of C++-like classes
-=)> to standard C was being considered. As far as my source understood
-=)> it, the classes in question would be Objective C -- like in
-=)> design.
-=)> Two things:
-=)> 1. Is this a real proposal of any degree of seriousness?

I think this was nothing but a joke. Would be a stupid proposal anyway.

-=)> 2. Isn't this an absolutely awful idea? Right now, C and C++
-=)> are very nearly completely compatible and it is generally practical
-=)> to write code that compiles under both. Adding classes in a non-C++-like
-=)> way would destroy C/C++ compatibility (or force C++ to support
-=)> yet another irrelevant carbuncle).

Right. C and C++ don't have the same purposes. C is actually powerful
for games, demos and system programming (despite there are some
C++-based operating systems). C++ was designed for fast development of
beta-releases and reusing existing code. But this generates really
_lame_ and _slow_ codes. It's why despite their ascendent
compatibility, C and C++ have still different objectives.

The difference between both languages is nothing but the concept of
classes. Declaring our variables anywhere in a scope and such
improvements are just gadgets.

So please never add class features to our beloved C language.

Greetings, Frank.
-- 
.-=)> Frank DENIS aka JEDI from SECTOR ONE / Association ONE TELEMATIQUE <(=-. 
\             frank.denis@one.net -=- http://www.epita.fr/~denis_r/          /
 )Serveur Minitel RTC-One : [+33 1] 48701029 - [+33 1] 48584617 V23 Videotex(
(The One BBS : [+33 1] 49887691 V34 8N1 (PC, Hp48, Mac, misc) - Paris, France)
 \_-^-_. "Programming will never feature your machine, learn coding." ._-^-_/