Oberon vs. C++ (1994)

Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994) by chubot on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @02:04PM (#9264740)

I basically just typedef away the ugly syntax. It basically works. Though I wish you could use typedefs in prototypes, like

    typedef int signal_func(int sigcatch, raised_func f);

    foo.h:
    signal_func* p_handler;


    foo.cc:
    signal_func my_handler {
      ...
    }

This would avoid a lot of repetition and is easier to read IMO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994) by pdw on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @02:13PM (#9264817)

Yes, C works if you know how to avoid the gotchas. It'd be nicer if the gotchas weren't there. It's not as if they add value to the language. (C++ OTOH seems to have too many gotchas to learn them all...)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994) by banachtarski on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @02:27PM (#9264922)

Seems to? How can you even know how to comment on the gotchas if you don't know them?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994) by troubled5 on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @09:34PM (#9267283)

The statement is about the viability of learning all gotchas of C++, and to make a credible point on this you just need to know there exists a large number of them.

(Indeed knowing all, or merely many, of the gotchas would speak against the conjecture.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994) by banachtarski on Thursday March 26, 2015 @03:58PM (#9272621)

Every language has gotchas...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994) by the_why_of_y on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @07:42PM (#9266837)

Scott Meyers seems to have made a career out of documenting them in his books.

[ Parent | on HN ]