At 08:50 PM 9/5/00 -0500, Geoff McInnes wrote:

> > Is there now enough uniformity in the
> >semantics of C++ that we can depend on it across all those compilers?
>
>I certainly would never claim to represent Jim Starkey's point of view,
>but suggesting C++ as a replacement for C will certainly provoke a
>response eventually.

Perhaps not. Certainly if he were to respond it would be positively,
both to the concept Torvalds proposed and to the use of C++. In my
day, we had a number of modules with overlapping functionality - either
to handle different operating environments or to work in different
utilities. Each was simple. Now there are thousands of ifdefs, making
the code ... confusing. I'm with Torvalds, it was easier to maintain
three simple modules than one that incorporates all three.

As for C++ - Java has the advantage of garbage collection and simplicity.
C++ can be simple - it's a matter of discipline. Java's string handling
is death to a database engine.

Regards,

Ann