🚀 go-pugleaf

David.Gunn@econsoft.wintermute.co.uk (David Gunn) wrote:

>I agree that understanding the linker process of C object files is aided by knowledge of
>how this would be done with an assembler object code.   But disagree that significant work
>with C is necessary for C++.  Basicly I would say it is a matter of personal preference,
>if you are the kind of person that enjoys working close to the hardware, you'll prefer C
>'the portable assembler', if you are a 'big concept' person like me, then you won't be
>able to find a use for C, but C++ objects will appeal.  
>
>Of course if you really want portablility or you are into the WWW you'll go for Java, at
>http://java.sun.com.   Java is an alternative to C++, you still call C for the low-level
>stuff just the same as from C++.   So maybe you should learn C then choose between C++ and
>Java.
>
I can't even begin to believe that someone is trying to say learning Java instead of C is an
option - particularly a fellow Aberdonian! Actually, I only just got my hands on Java today
for the first time as the uni has just installed Solaris instead of SunOS, but I would say
that given that this post was in rec.games.programmer, not in a WWW Applications programming
group, C++ is going to be superior and 5000 times more popular than Java.

Java's a very nice language - I've been following the mailing lists for some time - but
I can't see it even approaching C++'s level of general acceptance for many many years.

-- 
           "In the event of heartbreak, break fist with glass and 
	 			remove blu-tack"
			   _____
			    /  '             _/_
			 ,-/-, _  __  __  _  /
			(_/   (<_/ (_/ (_(<_(__ 

			    Alex "Ferret" Ferrier