[article] Language Design Deal Breakers

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 26.05.2013 11:28, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:44:52 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>>
>> Like I've said many times before, the only way I found coding in C++
>> tolerable was to use it as "C with classes". Trying to do real OO in
>> C++ is an exercise in masochism. Even Java with its baroque verbosity
>> and prolific boilerplates beats C++ hands-down in this respect.
>>
>
> I always used to consider myself comfortable with C/C++ until I came
> across Java.
>
> To mix metaphors, that was a double-edged eye-opener: Java (this was
> circa v1.2-v1.4) taught me everything that was wrong with C++'s classes
> and *cough* module system, but it *also* taught me that Java wasn't
> the answer either. ;)
>

For me the deal break was that it worked more or less the same 
everywhere, while keeping a C++ feeling.

Plus it had a module system reminiscent of Pascal family of languages, 
and back then I was already impressed with GC enabled systems 
programming languages thanks to Native Oberon operating system.

Did you had the pleasure to write portable C or C++ code across multiple 
operating systems and vendors in the mid 90's?

Welcome to #ifdef spaghetti code and reluctance of using certain 
features due to inconsistent support.

--
Paulo