3 ms·
In 1996 C++ was much more difficult and fragmented, but that quote is from 2003. Today C++ has (much) more abstraction power than Java. On the other hand, almos
by blub 16y ago
In 1996 C++ was much more difficult and fragmented, but that quote is from 2003. Today C++ has (much) more abstraction power than Java. On the other hand, almost every programming language has more abstraction power than Java, which knows only about classes, XML and design patterns.
- rbanffy 16y ago> Today C++ has (much) more abstraction power than Java. > almost every programming language has more abstraction power than Java Just curious: how does that make C++ stack up against other "fashionable" languages?
- blub 16y agoLots of languages are fashionable today, but most of them don't overlap with the use cases that are traditionally handled by C++. Even so, it fares pretty good. What it lacks in expressive power it makes up in speed, libraries and industry support. C# is in my opinion a realistic C++ alternative or complement.
- etal 16y agoWe might be agreeing here already, but my understanding was that the mindset Java fought against -- and finally won -- was: Interpreted, garbage-collected languages, or basically anything with a substantial runtime component, will be too slow and unpredictable to use in serious production environments. So Java went all-out with (1) a static type system and basic language features that C++ coders could respect, (2) a level of hype and corporate sponsorship/support that PHBs could respect, (3) a portable, eventually fast VM, opening up some nice deployment options. There was no need to introduce really exciting language features, only to keep promoting the OOP concepts that C++ thought-leaders were so enthusiastic about at the time.