Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.tele.dk!62.112.0.25!newsfeed.online.be!news-hub.siol.net!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: OT C++ was: Hardware z-machine?
Message-ID: <GHKL7A.MwI@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:54:46 GMT
References: <RjZ87.42028$SK6.5071866@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> <DsVa7.22245$uj2.3745638@news02.optonline.net> <GHJyLD.J8q@world.std.com> <9khsc9$prl$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 16
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:90661

Paul Trembath <ptrembath@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Sean T Barrett" <buzzard@world.std.com> wrote in message
>> The overriding theme of which is that C++ contains any number of
>> misfeatures because its primary design goal was "success in the
>> marketplace" not "quality of language".
>If someone praises C++ for providing the right features at the right time
>and becoming widely adopted, it's an irrelevant response to point out that
>it lacks "quality" by your definition.

Fortunately, this isn't a hypothetical. Someone voiced a specific
complaint, and someone else defended C++ on the basis of "success
in the marketplace". Viruses also have great success in the marketplace--
they have "the right features at the right time [to] becom[e] wildly
adopted", but that doesn't make them good.

SeanB
