| > The UNIX model won over object approaches. That's funny interpretation, because what is this mysterious "UNIX model" and what does it have to do with implementation language? Also, C++ used to be "C with classes", but has outgrown this single-paradigm thing quite quickly. I do a lot of C++, but I rarely use inheritance and virtual methods. These are not the features that make C++ worthwile for me. > The simplicity of flat memory model, [C], a unified file interface This "unified file interface" is a nice theoretical idea, and it leaks many nice things to the real world, but has nothing to do with the implementation language - quite contrary, it allows many different languages to communicate. Similar with "flat memory model" - you can have either language in segmented memory and flat memory. There used to be "far pointers" in both C and C++, and now they're gone, so what. > If C++ were actually better for engineering large systems, GNU wouldn't have had a chance. Oh, if only it were that way, if only inferior engineering systems would just lose and disappear. The sad truth is that survival of a language proves little about quality. If you believe C is better than C++, fine by me, just opinions. You can say "C++ is bad because it's more complex" or "has too many features", I can understand that, or "C++ is confusing because you can overload operators". My features are your bugs, okay. But I can't comprehend your actual arguments because they are orthogonal to the choice of language. |