Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Can you tell me what I said that you took to be "a tirade of C++ bashing"?

  A combination of concepts gave me the impression that you were
denigrating the way C++ does thing, while praising how other languages
do it better.

  Maybe you didn't use the word "unsafe" in a derogatory manner, but it
was easy to get the impression. When you said basically that it's not true
that C++ enforces modularity, and proceeded to "demonstrate" that by
trying to give examples of how you can circumvent C++'s semantics by
using low-level pointer casting and arithmetic, it gave the impression
that you were denigrating C++ for trying to do something and failing
miserably. This impression was emphasized by you at the same time telling
how you prefer how other languages do it "right" by having explicit support
for breaking the module interface boundaries, while in C++ you have to
resort to non-standard hacks to do the same. Also your arguments why
someone would even want to break the interface boundaries was not completely
convincing to me. (Your only argument seemed to be "reflection", and my
only experience on it is with Objective-C, where it's done without really
accessing private members from the outside, at least as far as I have had
to deal with it.) When you wrote that C++ is the only unsafe OO language
you know of, it sounded like you were bragging how *all* other OO languages
are better than C++, which gives the impression that you are telling that
C++ is the worst possible OO language in existence.

  I apologize if I overreacted.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message