🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <727841301.8123714@AppleLink.Apple.COM> ALANDAIL@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Personal Software, Alan Dail,PRT) writes:
>I would tend to disagree.  C and C++ both allow so many things to compile that
>could easily be typos but cause the program to do the wrong thing (I do admit
>that C++ is better than C).  For example, anywhere you can use a ==, you can
>also use = (and vice versa) and have the program compile fine (due to the
>definition of the language), but get different results.  Your program will not
>only compile, but may even work fine in some instances.  It doesn't even stand
>out when you are looking over your code.  This error would be cought in Pascal
>(or even in Pascal '9x), but not in C or C++.

MPW C++ will warn you if you use a "=" inside an if.  The biggest problem
I had switching from C to C++ was that I didn't pay enough attention to
the warnings that CFront emits.  My C code was so "warning-laden" that I
tended to just ignore them, but CFront can be quite helpful.  It could be
better, though, I admit.

>There are other many other problems like this that are part of the language and
>not due to the compiler.  This doesn't even address the other language problems
>like having various features clash when used together or having the wrong
>defaults when using features (why isn't virtual the default?).  It's a shame
>that Apple doesn't appear to be doing anything with Pascal '9x which appears to
>give programmers the power of C++ without nearly as many pitfalls.

Do you have any more examples?  I've found C++ to be an ideal mix of flexible
elegance & stiff type-checking.  The biggest gotcha for me is usually a bad
typecast, which if I understand correctly, Pascal allows as well.  Properly
written C++ code can pretty stable; it took many shots-to-the-foot, for
instance, before I was fully convinced that initializing everything to nil
and then checking everything before using it is truly The Way (tm).

cheers,
bobo              In seeking the unattainable,
bowman@reed.edu            simplicity only gets in the way.
Best personal ad ever:
"Functionally dysfunctional bi-polar former pop-star geek with Valium habit
seeks anorexic queen of darkness for co-dependency.  Hobbies include: passing
out, slurred speech, blurred vision and reliving past glory."
_Willamette Week_, 1/7-13/93

In article <727841301.8123714@AppleLink.Apple.COM>,
ALANDAIL@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Personal Software, Alan Dail,PRT) wrote:
> 
> that C++ is better than C).  For example, anywhere you can use a ==, you can

You're right about this, and I haven't considered these issues.  The == vs.
= problem is a flaw that C++ inherits from C.  The same is true of switch
statements (where leaving out the break in each case is usually a mistake).

As someone mentioned, MPW C++ does warn you about some of these things, and
a better compiler would do a better job of warning you.

> like having various features clash when used together or having the wrong

I think there's a tradeoff here.  You could remove lots of features from
the language, but then there would be useful things that you couldn't do. 
For example, removing stack-based objects would simplify things
considerably, but stack-based objects are useful in many places.

One of the premises behind my MADA Conference talk on C++ is that if you
develop some "rules of thumb" (or "idioms" as James Coplien describes them)
for using C++ then it's much easier to deal with the language.

> defaults when using features (why isn't virtual the default?).  It's a shame

C++ was designed for maximum performance.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com