In article <E9734v.BFF@research.att.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Koenig)
> > I would go further and say this is pretty much the _only_ reason why
> > C++ has such widespread use. But, in the current context, this is
> > really just the same tired old claim that "C++ is better than X,
> > because C++ is more popular than X". A claim that was always dubious
> > and which has certainly long since lost any plausibility that it might
> > have ever had.
> Not at all. Rather, it is a claim that programming is a human phenomenon,
> and there can be a huge difference between how useful a tool -- especially
> a language -- is in theory and how useful it is in practice.
Well, OK, but that is exactly tied up in the "chicken/egg" problem of
"popularity". So, under the interpretation you give here, I don't see
how you can say much of anything wrt the issue under the current
context - i.e., what is "technically better or more correct or more
efficacious or etc."
> Several years ago, I was on vacation in Norway and overheard a conversation
> in a hotel between an English woman and a member of the hotel staff. It
> went something like this:
This little story sez a lot more about interoperability requirements
of "less popular" things than it does about what is or isn't popular
or whether that popularity is deserved or anything of the sort. I
don't think anyone would really disagree with any of this, it's just
> Now, English is a mess of a language. Its spelling rules are atrocious,
> its grammar is unruly, it has far too many ways to say the same thing,
Well, actually, I very much disagree with this assesment. It's based
on a set of irrelevant criteria. It is a well known fallacy
attempting to draw conclusions about the "correctness/goodness" of
natural languages by comparing them with "formal languages" - or to
even try to judge natural languages with any of the criteria normally
used for formal languages. So, this little bit is really off target.
> So it is also with programming languages. If C++ had not built on C, it
> would never have gotten out of the starting gate.
Here, we are in definite agreement.
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178