Warp wrote:
>   And it's getting really tiresome and old that you act all innocent after
> a tirade of C++ bashing, 

Can you do me a favor, for the sake of future conversations?

Can you tell me what I said that you took to be "a tirade of C++ bashing"?

As far as I can see, I've been trying to be factual and honest. You started 
out using derogatory terms like "it's a kludge", and "that's BS", and 
referring to people as "self-taught hackers" and "use a fancy term instead 
of admitting their mistake" and "In Utopia, maybe" and the usual insulting 
hyperbole.

Where did I say anything derogatory about C++? I would like to know what I 
said about C++ that you took to be saying C++ is *bad*. Can you actually 
quote what I wrote that you took to be "C++ bashing", let alone a "tirade"?

As far as I can see, the conversation (once it got to be about modularity 
instead of minimalism) went something like
You: "Modularity is good. Breaking modularity is bad."
Me: "Yes. But everyone breaks modularity in different ways.
    CLOS breaks it by doing A
    C# and Java breaks it by doing B
    Python breaks it by doing C
    C++ breaks it by doing D
    I prefer B over D."
You: "D doesn't count. C++ doesn't break modularity."
Me: "Wild pointers."
You: "Doesn't count - not standard."
Me: "Memset"
You: "Doesn't count - non portable."
Me: "But it still happens."
You: "You're so mean, always bashing C++."

So, in all honestly, I'd really like to know where in the process I said 
something that "bashed" C++, rather than simply comparing its behavior with 
other languages and explaining (in detail) why I preferred the other mechanisms.

-- 
   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