Yep. He's apparently replying to a post by Charles Manning from 22
> years ago.
>
In 1995 Cfront was a viable C++ complier.
Yep. He's apparently replying to a post by Charles Manning from 22
> years ago.
>
In 1995 Cfront was a viable C++ complier.
I think the real question is: are you a programmer?
Abstraction ability is *not* synonomous with power. Assembler is able to do anything that any high(er) level language can do - but would you honestly try to claim that assembler and C have comparable abstraction capabilities?
C++ is not more powerful than C, but C++ absolutely *does* have greater abstraction ability - in general, a C version of a C++ program will be larger, more complex, and require more programmer effort to write and maintain.
It is a fact that the first C++ implementations compiled to C as an intermediate step ... however, modern C++ compilers no longer do this because the semantic differences between C++ and C now are so great that translation to C negatively impacts performance of C++ code.
George
cfront broke down when they tried to add exceptions to C++. Doing exceptions without at least a bit of compiler support is just too difficult. Which is another way of saying it introduced unacceptable overhead.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required