Path: csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-transit.telstra.net!pit-in1.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Java vs C++ Followup-To: comp.lang.java.programmer Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 00:15:07 +1300 Organization: Geek Central Lines: 17 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 118-92-86-70.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1296904507 25954 118.92.86.70 (5 Feb 2011 11:15:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:15:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.4.7 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25559 In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++, in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping the worthwhile parts. This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++ Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no longer that far off C++ in complexity. Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now they’ve changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be backward- compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications that C++ never had to deal with. Bjarne Stroustroup must be chuckling over his hot cocoa...