Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25655

Re: Java vs C++

From Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Java vs C++
Date 2011-02-05 09:26 -0500
Organization albasani.net
Message-ID <iijmms$bh3$3@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References <iijbfr$pb2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4d585c$0$81476$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Show all headers | View raw


Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 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...

Silvio wrote:
> C++ did not have generics from the beginning. It was added afterwards and
> initially without any proper specification of (separate) compilation and
> linkage aspects.

C++ doesn't have generics.  It has templates.  They aren't the same thing.

C# has generics.  Java has (different) generics.  C++ doesn't.

Lawrence is trolling.

-- 
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
.___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/  | *\##|
|#/ * |   \#|
|#----|----#|
||    |  * ||
|o *  |    o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-06 00:15 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:55 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:15 -0500
      Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-09 15:48 +1100
        Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-09 00:15 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:13 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-11 13:11 +1300
      Re: Java vs C++ Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2011-02-08 09:00 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 14:13 +1100
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 20:31 +1300
        Re: [OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 16:53 +1100
      Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-07 18:58 +0100
        Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:59 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 15:59 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:00 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:07 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:22 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:26 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 14:30 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 20:42 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-07 21:03 -0800
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:51 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:54 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:08 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:10 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 19:57 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:51 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:24 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:28 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:20 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-02-06 10:55 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Pitch <mail@fake.info> - 2011-02-05 13:01 +0100
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-06 01:24 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-05 09:38 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-05 09:32 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Jef <e70838@gmail.com> - 2011-02-09 04:34 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:12 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:53 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:30 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-05 15:02 +0100
  Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:49 -0500

csiph-web