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


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26098

Re: Java vs C++

From Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Java vs C++
Followup-To comp.lang.java.programmer
Date 2011-02-07 15:52 +1300
Organization Geek Central
Message-ID <iinmol$9er$6@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <iil5ed$10m$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de> <iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iinjod$7j3$8@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iinku4$tbg$2@news.eternal-september.org>

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw


In message <iinku4$tbg$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> On 02/06/2011 09:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<iimnes$dh2$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a macro generator that understands types and is heavily integrated
>>> with the syntax of C++, but it is basically a way to automatically
>>> generate code.
>>
>> You seem to be confusing one particular way of implementing
>> generics/templates with the way the language feature is specified. Java
>> generics could be implemented by a preprocessor that spat out
>> first-edition Java code, for that matter. In fact, it effectively does,
>> since the JVM seems to know nothing about generics. Would you then say
>> that third-edition Java is nothing more than a “macro generator”?
> 
> I make a minor distinction between syntactic sugar--a language feature
> which is designed to replace specific syntax features for ease of coding
> (e.g., for-each loops)--and macro processing, which is generally
> unrestricted code or text generation.

In that case, C++ templates are most certainly not macros.

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


Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-06 16:35 +0100
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:51 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 22:06 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:01 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 14:53 +0100
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:52 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 13:09 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:55 +0100
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:00 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:20 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:52 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:25 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:29 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 00:57 +0100
  Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 12:57 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 10:09 -0800
    Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 12:07 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:22 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 08:11 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:41 +0100

csiph-web