4 ms·
> No, people simply don't like "language fanboy-isms" here. I said specifically that any metalanguage would do. And there's a lot of them. I do not care which
by sklogic 11y ago
> No, people simply don't like "language fanboy-isms" here.
I said specifically that any metalanguage would do. And there's a lot of them. I do not care which one to use.
> The reality is that no language is "superior by definition."
Then you do not understand what "superior" means.
> Some languages are better at certain things than others depending on the task at hand, and many other factors.
A language A which contains all the features of a language B, plus a bit more, is superior by definition, because it can seamlessly replace language B without anyone noticing.
- theseoafs 11y ago"Features" are not the only things that matter when it comes to weighing languages against each other. Is it unanimously agreed that C++ is "superior by definition" to C? What about Objective-C?
- sklogic 11y agoC++ is not, technically, a 100% superset of C, there are some really cool features in C that are missing from C++. If it was not the case, and if you take the runtime library overhead out of consideration, then yes, C++ would have been superior in terms of expressive power, since it could be doing everything that C can, plus a bit more (and even a tiny bit counts).