3 ms·
Yup. We were looking at alternate runtimes in some OS / userland projects at Apple in the late 80s. You don't need vtables, and you can do better than static st
by kabdib 10y ago
Yup. We were looking at alternate runtimes in some OS / userland projects at Apple in the late 80s. You don't need vtables, and you can do better than static struct layout. You have to do some work at code load-time.
C++'s initial lack of a real string type and simple collection types pretty much doomed the language. (Instead they did iostreams? I've been using C++ since early CFront days, and have never used that misbegotten API).
- pjmlp 10y agoI guess I am one of the few people on the planet than enjoys using iostreams when I need to use C++. :) Then again, I never needed to know all their little details. Yeah implementing string, array and collection types was a kind of rite of passage for every C++ developer, back when the compilers were still trying to catch up with C++ARM. I believe appealing to the C culture was one of the reasons those types weren't initially available, as C++ was already considered too bloated by the C community even without them. Nowadays their three major compilers are written in C++.