Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   You always succeed in returning to your favorite subject: Bashing
>>> "unsafe" languages. And in your world there's only one such language: C++.
> 
>> You know something?  It's getting "really tiresome and old" that every time 
>> I list problems with 5 or 6 different languages, you think I'm bashing on 
>> C++.
> 
>   5 or 6 different languages? Really?

Yeah. LISP, Java, C#, C++, Python, and Ada. That's the first post I said 
anything that could conceivably imply C++ wasn't perfect. I pointed out how 
you could violate encapsulation in each of them.

>   You started by making a reference to "unsafe languages" within the subject
> of modular programming as a reply to one of my posts

Yes.

>(clearly as a reference to C++), 

Except I specificly used the phrase "unsafe languages" because I knew if I 
said "C++" you'd go off the handle.  I was particularly pointing out that 
unsafe languages let you violate modularity. Whether it's OO modularity or 
non-OO modularity is irrelevant to whether unsafe languages let you violate 
modularity.

 > and later you said that C++ is the *only* unsafe OO language you
> know of.

But it's not the only unsafe modular language I know. But you were talking 
about OO in addition to modularity, so that's why it came up.

> After that you have been done nothing else than arguing why
> modularity in C++ is broken and why Lisp, Java and C# are so great.

I haven't said the others were great. I simply said I preferred the 
imperfections in C# to the imperfections in C++.

>   Yeah, sure. You really have been pointing out problems in "5 or 6 different
> languages", and I'm just being paranoid that you are concentrating a little
> too much on C++.

Honestly, it really seems like that to me. I'm sorry you have so much of 
your ego bound up in a programming language.

>> It's 
>> getting "really tiresome and old" that every time I point out problems with 
>> unsafe languages in general, you think I'm bashing solely on C++.
> 
>   You explicitly wrote that C++ is the only unsafe OO language you know of.

Yes, after you asked me about it.  I also asked you to name another unsafe 
OO language, but you didn't. There are other OO languages that you can 
bypass the safety on, but most people using them don't without knowing what 
they're doing, specifically for performance.

> You have been writing specifically about C++, not about "unsafe languages
> in general".

No. I was writing about unsafe modular languages. It turned into C++ after a 
while, when people started specifically saying you can't bypass the 
modularity in C++ like you can in the other languages.

>   And it's getting really tiresome and old that you act all innocent after
> a tirade of C++ bashing, saying that "I just wanted a serious discussion
> and honestly wanted to know more", when it's rather clear that you didn't
> really.

Well, if you start out with that assumption, I guess anything I say can be 
twisted to read that way.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message