Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26098
| 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$2@news.eternal-september.org> |
Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer
In message <iinku4$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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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