Diagramming Robust AI

Bill Moyer billm at cygnus.com
Mon Mar 30 19:44:30 EST 1998


In article <351FC273.3006 at ix.netcom.com> "Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob at ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>> C++, however, wasn't supposed to be a successor to C -- it was just
>> a little hack job put atop C.  The name is actually a geek-pun of classic
>> form, as C++ actually compiled to C, one could argue that the CC compiler
>> simply "incremented C and returns the old value".
>
>Hack job is right.  It added tons of crap, most of which could have 
>been handled by standard C structures.  And worse, it didn't fix a 
>lot of things that really needed fixing.  Has anyone here found C++ 
>to be the godsend it was advertised to be?

  I certainly haven't, but on the other hand I think you're being too
harsh on it (or at least harsh for the wrong reasons).  Classes added
some much-needed modularity, even though they were implemented rather 
poorly and are usually misused.  Same goes with overloads.  The auto-
matic initialization feature is quite useful.  It's still just kludging 
extra features onto a neanderthal language, though.  It makes me think 
of a turbocharged VW Bug.

  I think we're as likely to see C++ replaced by something better in the
mainstream software industry as we are to see Intel processors replaced 
by something better in the mainstream desktop market, though.

  -- Bill Moyer




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list