Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A defer mechanism for C
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 07:40:05 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <867dp4y3sa.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <3a965b75-7eb6-4287-8e19-8969b6628d90n@googlegroups.com> <rrgck7$s3d$1@dont-email.me> <db1a5f1c-7ec8-401d-ac39-a1eddd66ca65n@googlegroups.com> <rrghra$2n4$1@dont-email.me> <fe8eac6c-5448-4515-a70e-246ef6d4524dn@googlegroups.com> <rrgjt0$g6a$2@dont-email.me> <20201218013304.89c5c8c6b96a0c6685a8e33f@gmail.com> <rrhg6s$87b$1@dont-email.me> <m82DH.75750$JT57.46464@fx31.ams4> <rridgd$32p$1@dont-email.me> <nE4DH.188924$SiR9.37365@fx11.ams4> <rril7c$tec$1@dont-email.me> <Cl5DH.145448$oT47.133495@fx20.ams4> <rrio9o$l6j$1@dont-email.me> <0D6DH.628865$W6Df.477662@fx12.ams4> <rrj0j7$lbo$1@dont-email.me> <K_8DH.1111018$PJla.769760@fx46.ams4> <rrj6lt$1hg$1@dont-email.me> <20201219172815.ee4d88edb9bc19c3b03614f5@gmail.com> <86bleixwdc.fsf@linuxsc.com> <89afb76d-163a-4478-b44c-a49aaeefd9b9n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a92e466cbf3d012f3bfde12bf20b8e54"; logging-data="12519"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WsYFwvyMsq/tUENx8uH4NXqRL5wJZCc8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LycTanRleC27VsOQWpnPXAZCAgE= sha1:iVppDg4JhA4LgNXzAaXcyeHf4cg=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:157788

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 7:56:04 AM UTC+2, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bonita Montero about C++:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, this language is to complicated for your small
>>>> mind.
>>>
>>> An overly complicated language is like an OS that takes all
>>> the RAM and CPU avaiable, leaving no resources for actual
>>> work.  C.f.  the great Edsger Dijkstra:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> -- Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad
>>> idea which could only have originated in California.
>>
>> I greatly respect the views of Dijkstra, but on this point
>> he is simply wrong:  the idea of object-oriented programming
>> did not originate in California.
>
> So, I suppose, you agree with the first part of his sentence?

I don't know what he means well enough to say either way.  Both
"object-oriented programming" and "exceptionally bad idea" mean
different things to different people.  As a general rule I don't
want to say either I agree or I don't agree if I don't know what
agreement or disagreement would entail.