Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> ... of what I think is wrong with the whole C++ language/library design 
> methodology.  The whole "the compiler can't do X, and the compiler can't do 
> Y, so we'll add kludges to get around that fact so the programmer can tell 
> the compiler how to do what we want, rather than fixing the fact it can't do 
> X and can't do Y."  Of course, I understand the reasons X and Y don't get 
> fixed, but that doesn't make it more pleasant. :-)

  You are really beating a dead horse. Every single problem with C++ which
people try to think good solutions for is something which makes the language
"wrong", while you seldom seem to show the same type of attitude towards
other programming languages and their problems.

  For example, I don't ever remember you making a post saying "a wonderful
example of what I think is wrong with the whole Haskell language", and then
proceed to mention one single problem for which someone suggests a solution
for.

  I know I'm being paranoid once again, but I just can't help to feel that
you *are* biased. It just feels that you are looking at C++ through
different glasses than you look at other languages, and any problem in
C++ always automatically makes the language "wrong", while problems in
other languages don't.

  Even if you do agree that other languages do have their problems and
people thinking about clever solutions to those problems, C++ seems to be
the only language which ever makes you post new threads here.

  Call me paranoid if you wish, but I really wonder if you would be making
these posts if I had never written a single word about C++.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message