Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So... it's Turing-complete?

Yep.  I saw a turing machine emulator written as templates, with a 
series of error messages from the compiler tracing the path through the 
state changes.

In any case, generics are a subset of templates. It's entirely possible 
to think that generics are a good idea and that templates are a bad way 
to implement them. For example, you have to parse and compile the 
templates each time from source, and you get a new blob of code for each 
type you instantiate a template with. Both of these are a bad idea when 
you're trying to make a system where you can distribute object code 
without source for generics, or you want to instantiate a generic at 
runtime with some other class you just loaded.

Now, "crippled" is what I'd call the baroque C++ syntax. I mean, really, 
folks, can't we accept that languages that aren't C don't need to avoid 
C special characters in new syntax? :-) What's with this "::" for 
namespaces in Tcl and <<>> for generics in Java? Ugly, guys, uUUUuugly!

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message