|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |