Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: FredZarguna

Since you’ve chosen to ignore wide swaths of what I wrote, I’ll only address one response (the rest was largely redundant with what I’d already written regardless).

“BeOS: blather and nonsense. Please don’t post crap like this thinking I’m some code-slave in the next cubicle you can spin your nonsense to. There are lightweight Unix implementations written entirely in C++, there are large parts of the NT code base and supporting apps in C++, and there are large parts of Unix (like CDE) written in C++.”

So, you admit that since BeOS no OS has been written in object-oriented (as opposed to C subset) C++. Specifically as in accessing core OS functionality using C++ objects.

Game, set, match. C++ isn’t suitable for systems programming, nor really for any other large-scale undertaking.

Software development is rapidly moving beyond C++. I hope you’re happy advocating the “new COBOL”. LOL!


101 posted on 11/12/2009 8:13:34 PM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]


To: PreciousLiberty
Apparently, you're illiterate. Read what I actually wrote: there are operating systems written in C++. There are no operating systems written in Objective-C. There are <1% of developers coding in Objective-C, despite it's having been around forever. If its use were not enforced, NO ONE would use it.

I understand you're a failed C++ coder. It's OK. We need garbagemen, too. Thankfully, I don't have to clean out your birdcages; I have more contract time than I can actually satisfy.

103 posted on 11/12/2009 8:27:31 PM PST by FredZarguna (Real men don't let hardware manufacturers dictate their language choices)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson