Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994)
by mamcx on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @02:47PM
(#9265065)
None of deficiencies have been corrected. Just are added tons and tons of new features, leaving the old-cruft there.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994)
by AnimalMuppet on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @03:26PM
(#9265307)
The article called out specific things as being deficiencies in C++. It cited a lack of a Boolean type. Now C++ has bool. It cited lack of modules (name spaces). C++ now has this. It cited the lack of run-time type information. C++ now has RTTI.
But it sounds like you have a different list of "deficiencies" than the article...
Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994)
by the_why_of_y on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @07:50PM
(#9266863)
In what bizarro world do C++ namespaces qualify as modules?
There are rumors that Apple's clang developers are working on something in that direction, but until that vaporware is done and standardized, C++ programmers have to use the C preprocessor's automated text copy-and-paste mechanism in lieu of a proper module system.
Edited to add: an article and video about the clang C++ modules work-in-progress
http://isocpp.org/blog/2012/11/modules-update-on-work-in-pro...
Re:Oberon vs. C++ (1994)
by AnimalMuppet on Thursday March 26, 2015 @12:03PM
(#9270612)
The article said that (Oberon) modules and C++ namespaces were similar features. You may have a different definition of modules, or you may think that the article is wrong to compare the two. That's fine. But I'm just the messenger here; go shoot somebody else.