Messages in this thread | | | Date | 02 Jan 2002 11:59:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: a great C++ book? |
| |
jamagallon@able.es (J.A. Magallon) wrote on 02.01.02 in <20020102013411.A5968@werewolf.able.es>:
> On 20020101 Larry McVoy wrote: > > > >Makes you wonder what would happen if someone tried to design a > >minimalistic C++, call it the "M programming language", have be close > >to C with the minimal useful parts of C++ included. > > > > There are specs for something called 'Embedded C++'. You can run it on > a cell phone, so it looks like little bloated...
Wrong metric, unless you mean you can run the *compiler* on the cell phone.
c99.pdf: 1412026 bytes c++98.pdf: 2860601 bytes
And remember that interactions between features go up exponentially.
I think one of the worst design decisions for C++ (hindsight, of course) was to keep compatibility with C. The other bad one was to accept too many new features.
The Modula-3 standard (that's an OO variant of Modula-2) had as a language design goal that the language description should not take more than 50 pages. They overshot that, but it still was much less than 100 (somewhat less precise than C/C++, admittedly). As a result, that language (and consequently, programs in that language) is *much* easier to understand than C++.
That doesn't mean I'm in love with Modula-3. Actually, I don't even use it, and I do think (hindsight again) some of the design decisions were unfortunate. But I do think keeping an eye on the sheer mass of the spec is a good idea.
MfG Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |