«

I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
yet looked or craze about any other language. Still a question exists,
really C++ is the best language in its category?

On 4 Mar, 17:53, "Sarath" <CSar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
> yet looked or craze about any other language. Still a question exists,
> really C++ is the best language in its category?

What about Objective C?

On Mar 4, 11:53 am, "Sarath" <CSar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
> yet looked or craze about any other language. Still a question exists,
> really C++ is the best language in its category?

C++ isn't just an OOP language. It supports procedural and generic
programming as well. Not every problem is best modeled by objects.

"Sarath" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
> yet looked or craze about any other language. Still a question exists,
> really C++ is the best language in its category?

It depends on what you want to use it for. For me it's a good all aroiund
language for anything I want to do, but there are other languages that
specialize in other thnings better.

Sarath wrote:
> I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
> yet looked or craze about any other language. Still a question exists,
> really C++ is the best language in its category?
>
In which category do you place it?

--
Ian Collins.

> On Mar 4, 9:53 pm, "Sarath" <CSar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
> yet looked or craze about any other language.

1st, you English is not good BUT who cares as long as we understand
each-other's communication, when i feel i am unable to then i will ask
for clarification

> Still a question exists,
> really C++ is the best language in its category?

category ?

C++ is a multi-paradigmatic programming language. it supports
procedural, OO and generic programming paradigms. it is not a genuine
OO language because it was designed to be pragmatic, to solve some of
the biggest problems in softwares:

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/oopsla.pdf
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/new_learning.pdf
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/dne.html

BTW, in what category, you are putting C++? it does not matter but i
am curious.

2nd, i do not know is relevant here or not but i will put it here. in
my country, INDIA, there are lots of jobs for programmers who carry
these 3 skills:

1. C++
2. OOA-D with DPs
3. Algorithms and Data-Structures in C++

largest number of programming positions are for programmers who carry
those 3 skills and i see C++ is the biggest tool for job-hunting in
India.

--arnuld
http://arnuld.blogspot.com

> 1st, you English is not good BUT who cares as long as we understand
> each-other's communication, when i feel i am unable to then i will ask
> for clarification

Sorry I'm not an English Native also not that much used with English
Language. I'll try my level best to improve. I'm also from India.

> Still a question exists,
> really C++ is the best language in its category?

Obviously C++ is in the category of Object Oriented Programming
Languages. Actualy this is what I really tried to communicate by using
the word "category".
Smalltalk, Eiffel, ADA etc... are some of the OOP Languages which I
only heard about.

When I went through the new standard proposals, some of the proposed
library extentions and other core language features are already there
in the other programming languages which I mentioned above. That is
the real trigger to post this question.

Regards,
Sarath
My Blog:- http://sarathc.wordpress.com/

> On Mar 5, 9:17 am, "Sarath" <CSar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sarath, please do not remove quotes.

> > 1st, you English is not good BUT who cares as long as we understand
> > each-other's communication, when i feel i am unable to then i will ask
> > for clarification

ye said that.

> Sorry I'm not an English Native also not that much used with English
> Language. I'll try my level best to improve. I'm also from India.


ok

> > Still a question exists,
> > really C++ is the best language in its category?

i did not said that. you said so. whenever you want to reply to 2
different posts, please create 2 posts for replying. do NOT reply to 2
different posts in shot.

got it ?

> Obviously C++ is in the category of Object Oriented Programming
> Languages. Actualy this is what I really tried to communicate by using
> the word "category".

> Smalltalk, Eiffel, ADA etc... are some of the OOP Languages which I
> only heard about.

[OT]
i read some pages of Bertarnd Meyer's OOSC, Eiffel seems good and so
is Ruby. never saw any smalltalk code.
[/OT]


> When I went through the new standard proposals, some of the proposed
> library extentions and other core language features are already there
> in the other programming languages which I mentioned above. That is
> the real trigger to post this question.

that is fine but 1st before asking any question, ask youself and think
HARD:


why you want C++ ?
what are you planning to do with C++ ?


i am clear on this, JOB issue. my personal favourite is Common Lisp.
[1]

-- arnuld
http://arnuld.blogspot.com

[1] http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/

On Mar 4, 11:17 pm, "Sarath" <CSar...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
> Sorry I'm not an English Native also not that much used with English
> Language. I'll try my level best to improve. I'm also from India.

India, the US, Australia and all the other former colonies
each have their own dialect of English. If you learn
a different dialect, there will always be someone who will
tell you it's wrong.

>
> > Still a question exists,
> > really C++ is the best language in its category?
>
> Obviously C++ is in the category of Object Oriented Programming
> Languages. Actualy this is what I really tried to communicate by using
> the word "category".
> Smalltalk, Eiffel, ADA etc... are some of the OOP Languages which I
> only heard about.

In SmallTalk all objects (including those with primitive types)
are created dynamically (new'ed). But the "pointers" to
objects are untyped. If you want to write (for example)
a "sort" function in C++ using OO, you have to assume
the objects you sort inherit from some kind of "sortable"
common base class. You don't have to worry about that
in SmallTalk. You write your sort function using the
untyped pointer. You will get a runtime error if you
use "sort" on objects that don't have the necessary
comparison operation that the sort function uses. In
general terms, this means that the "dialect" of OO
that is present in SmallTalk is more flexible than
the combination of OO and Templates in C++.

The price that is paid by SmallTalk (and similar
languages) for this flexibility is that function calls
normally require a hash table lookup, so they are
slower than function calls in C++.

SmallTalk has some silly "religous" rules, like
all member variables have to private, and all
member functions have to be public. C++ is
a very practical language because (at least in
the early days) proposed features were
driven around the block a few times by Bell Labs
programmers before going into the language.

I don't care for SmallTalk's syntax, but of
course everyone has there own ideas about
aesthetics.

As Dr. Stroustrup repeats constantly, there is
no programming language that will always fill
everyones needs in all situations better than
all other languages.

> When I went through the new standard proposals, some of the proposed
> library extentions and other core language features are already there
> in the other programming languages which I mentioned above. That is
> the real trigger to post this question.

This may be because C++ is meant to be capable
of near-assembler performance under most OSes
and CPU architectures. This is a big difference
with Java, SmallTalk, etc. It makes it MUCH
harder to design libraries and certain language
features that can be implemented well in so
many different target environments.

On Mar 4, 9:56 pm, "arnuld" <geek.arn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 9:53 pm, "Sarath" <CSar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm so much font of working with C++ . That's the reason why I'm not
> > yet looked or craze about any other language.
>
> 1st, you English is not good BUT who cares as long as we understand
> each-other's communication, when i feel i am unable to then i will ask
> for clarification

People in glass houses...