Isn't that effectively what companies do now? Don't they all have a
"Here is what you can use, this and nothing else" doc?
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:57:01PM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
Maybe it???s time for C++ subset ???G'
Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications
joe(a)via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax
> On May 11, 2020, at 12:12 PM, Paul Winalski <paul.winalski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/11/20, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
>>
>> C++ is an example in my mind of not listening to Dennis' words:
>>
>> - ???C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success.???
>
> Ditto Fortran.
>
>> - ???When I read commentary about suggestions for where C should go, I
>> often think back and give thanks that it wasn't developed under the
>> advice
>> of a worldwide crowd.???
>
> The old saying of an elephant being a mouse designed by committee comes to mind.
>
> Language standards committees tend to be like a pack of dogs
> contemplating a tree. Each dog isn't satisfied with the tree until
> he's peed on it.
>
>> - ???A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to
program
>> in than some that do???
>
> Big, comprehensive languages such as PL/I, Ada, and C++ tend to have
> more of their share of toxic language features--things that shouldn't
> be used if you want reliable, easily maintained and understood code.
> Ada failed for two reasons: [1] it had cooties because of its
> military origins, and [2] it collapsed under the weight of all of its
> features.
>
> -Paul W.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at
mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm