All I can say - my gratitude to the writer of that, so called, "interview".
IMHO that person (who wrote the text) should be a SciFi writer. :)

-- 
...........
Dejan Lekic
  http://dejan.lekic.org

In article <dli3m8$11vs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>Tomás Rossi wrote:
>> In article <dlhq0n$pns$1@digitaldaemon.com>, huh says...
>> 
>>>No way! Its real.
>> 
>> 
>> Real my but! http://www.alledegodenavnevaroptaget.dk/interview.html
>> 
>> 
>>>In article <dlhnif$j3e$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Tomás Rossi says...
>>>
>>>>In article <dlgvac$tql$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>>>>
>>>>>Knud Sørensen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I stumbled over this interview with Stroustrup
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/Invention_of_Cplusplus.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh great. Now everytime I go to program C++, it actually /feels/ like the language was designed to deceive me.
>>>>
>>>>Are you kidding? Didn't you believe it right? It's a fake... not real! It's just a joke, don't be afraid. :)
>
>I know :-P I'm not afraid, but I never really thought 'what if' the language was designed to be deceptive. Now every time I go to C++, I'll have to wonder about it.
>
>>>>
>>>>PS: Somebody will have to put an after comment to that interview, telling it's just a fake or we'll see many programmers killing themselves in the next days. I would commit suicide if that article were true :P
>> 
>
>If it were true, then we could get everyone to switch to D.

The thing is that if this were true, not only C++ would be disreputable but
every (C++)-like language and maybe every OO-language (D included). I think that
if this was the case, i'd retire from programming (and studying CSs) and travel
to a distant cave in a distant mountain and live like an hermit :P. Lucky for us
it's just a scam :)

Tom

In article <pan.2005.11.15.18.59.07.75576@sneakemail.com>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= says...
>
>Hi
>
>I stumbled over this interview with Stroustrup
>
>
>http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/Invention_of_Cplusplus.shtml

Well, it is rather an old joke :-)

But it is very interesting now precisely the author describes all the shortcomings of C++(and trully, I see absolutely no advantage of that language). I don't agree on the OO criticism thought. When I first stumbled across D I was really impressed. I think it is the first time in the world that a c clone was really useable :-) If we don't count java(with it's crappy standart library). Well, I don't get why everyone is coding in C and C++ anyways... Only the 10min compiling times tend to kill me...

I saw that one a few years ago and thought it funny then (is hummer has become more cynical the more I work with C++). But It also got me thinking "How does D address these shortcomings of C++?" The parody might make a good check list of this to do/avoid doing with D. Has D address them? Are we at risk of falling into any of those traps? I haven't re read the interview yet (I will shortly) but maybe we should make a list of its criticisms and look into them.

In article <dlic7d$1gcd$1@digitaldaemon.com>, taras says...
>
>In article <pan.2005.11.15.18.59.07.75576@sneakemail.com>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= says...
>>
>>Hi
>>
>>I stumbled over this interview with Stroustrup
>>
>>
>>http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/Invention_of_Cplusplus.shtml
>
>Well, it is rather an old joke :-)
>
>But it is very interesting now precisely the author describes all the shortcomings of C++(and trully, I see absolutely no advantage of that language). I don't agree on the OO criticism thought. When I first stumbled across D I was really impressed. I think it is the first time in the world that a c clone was really useable :-) If we don't count java(with it's crappy standart library). Well, I don't get why everyone is coding in C and C++ anyways... Only the 10min compiling times tend to kill me...
>
>

In article <dlic7d$1gcd$1@digitaldaemon.com>, taras says...
>
>In article <pan.2005.11.15.18.59.07.75576@sneakemail.com>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= says...
>>
>>Hi
>>
>>I stumbled over this interview with Stroustrup
>>
>>
>>http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/Invention_of_Cplusplus.shtml
>
>Well, it is rather an old joke :-)
>
>But it is very interesting now precisely the author describes all the shortcomings of C++(and trully, I see absolutely no advantage of that language).

Despite the shortcomings, there's advantages in many MANY things.

>I don't agree on the OO criticism thought. When I first stumbled across D I was really impressed. I think it is the first time in the world that a c clone was really useable :-)

You're overstating a little too much.

> If we don't count java(with it's crappy standart library).
>Well, I don't get why everyone is coding in C and C++ anyways... Only the 10min compiling times tend to kill me...

They code in C and C++ because these languages are powerful and mature languages
for many tasks. Plus, you could not write C++ or D code (mean using most part of
it's features, not only inline asm) that do things in the exact way you want
they to happen. With C++/D you're leaving a lot of work to the compiler; C is
much more ASM straightforward so it will never die. That's why C is the language
OS developers choose. Hope D can achieve the same results in this field in the
future.
Also D IMHO is still immature in the sense that it isn't recommendable to employ
it on serious big projects (yet). Some features will be added, some bugs will be
fixed, a long road we'll have to walk yet :) (hope this all happens soon).

Regards (and dreaming some day D becomes the standard)

Tom

>They code in C and C++ because these languages are powerful and mature languages for many tasks. Plus, you could not write C++ or D code (mean using most part of it's features, not only inline asm) that do things in the exact way you want they to happen. With C++/D you're leaving a lot of work to the compiler; C is much more ASM straightforward so it will never die. That's why C is the language OS developers choose. Hope D can achieve the same results in this field in the future.

>Tom

I agree fully that C is a very good tradeoff for assembler. And I never doubted it that C is bad for OS programming. It is just that C isn't good for anything else besides the low-level programming(I use it too for this). And C++ isn't good at anything. Well, let's not start flame wars around here :-) I can only tell my optnion. I grew with delphi(now freepascal) and when I tried to switch to C++, I just was not able to do it. The syntax was so messy and the whole code structure so unclear... I myself tend to believe in virtual machines that will wrap around the hardware and act like OS, much like microsofts .NET. This will remove the porting problems.

What I would like to have in D are precompiled metapackeges(modules) taht will contain the parsed header information about types and functions + links to the libraries, with some version checking mechanisms. This is much like what pascal is doing. This way the compilation will be much faster and error-free. I think the header files are one of greatest C/C++ problems, even if they make them so incredibly flexible.

-taras

BCS wrote:
> I saw that one a few years ago and thought it funny then (is hummer has become
> more cynical the more I work with C++). But It also got me thinking "How does D
> address these shortcomings of C++?" The parody might make a good check list of
> this to do/avoid doing with D. Has D address them? Are we at risk of falling
> into any of those traps? I haven't re read the interview yet (I will shortly)
> but maybe we should make a list of its criticisms and look into them.

alias might be more dangerous than typedef, since you can alias anything, type's and functions and vars.


> 
> In article <dlic7d$1gcd$1@digitaldaemon.com>, taras says...
> 
>>In article <pan.2005.11.15.18.59.07.75576@sneakemail.com>,
>>=?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= says...
>>
>>>Hi 
>>>
>>>I stumbled over this interview with Stroustrup
>>>
>>>
>>>http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/Invention_of_Cplusplus.shtml
>>
>>Well, it is rather an old joke :-) 
>>
>>But it is very interesting now precisely the author describes all the
>>shortcomings of C++(and trully, I see absolutely no advantage of that language).
>>I don't agree on the OO criticism thought. When I first stumbled across D I was
>>really impressed. I think it is the first time in the world that a c clone was
>>really useable :-) If we don't count java(with it's crappy standart library).
>>Well, I don't get why everyone is coding in C and C++ anyways... Only the 10min
>>compiling times tend to kill me... 
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

In article <dlirse$27fq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>BCS wrote:
>> I saw that one a few years ago and thought it funny then (is hummer has become more cynical the more I work with C++). But It also got me thinking "How does D address these shortcomings of C++?" The parody might make a good check list of this to do/avoid doing with D. Has D address them? Are we at risk of falling into any of those traps? I haven't re read the interview yet (I will shortly) but maybe we should make a list of its criticisms and look into them.
>
>alias might be more dangerous than typedef, since you can alias anything, type's and functions and vars.

I'd rather compare alias with #define (a more restrictive #define). Typedef of D is much more nice than C++'s  one.

Tom

Tomás Rossi wrote:
> In article <dlirse$27fq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
> 
>>BCS wrote:
>>
>>>I saw that one a few years ago and thought it funny then (is hummer has become
>>>more cynical the more I work with C++). But It also got me thinking "How does D
>>>address these shortcomings of C++?" The parody might make a good check list of
>>>this to do/avoid doing with D. Has D address them? Are we at risk of falling
>>>into any of those traps? I haven't re read the interview yet (I will shortly)
>>>but maybe we should make a list of its criticisms and look into them.
>>
>>alias might be more dangerous than typedef, since you can alias anything, type's and functions and vars.
> 
> 
> I'd rather compare alias with #define (a more restrictive #define). Typedef of D
> is much more nice than C++'s  one.
> 
> Tom

I was saying that alias may be worse than C's typedef, since C's typedef is equivilent to an alias, but you can use alias on function names as well and I'm guessing you could alias alias's, never tried though. I'm betting you could really obfuscate code with D's alias if you wanted to. D's typedef, on the other hand, gets it right.

In article <dlnn4u$n2f$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>Tomás Rossi wrote:
>> In article <dlirse$27fq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>> 
>>>BCS wrote:
>>>
>>>>I saw that one a few years ago and thought it funny then (is hummer has become more cynical the more I work with C++). But It also got me thinking "How does D address these shortcomings of C++?" The parody might make a good check list of this to do/avoid doing with D. Has D address them? Are we at risk of falling into any of those traps? I haven't re read the interview yet (I will shortly) but maybe we should make a list of its criticisms and look into them.
>>>
>>>alias might be more dangerous than typedef, since you can alias anything, type's and functions and vars.
>> 
>> 
>> I'd rather compare alias with #define (a more restrictive #define). Typedef of D is much more nice than C++'s  one.
>> 
>> Tom
>
>I was saying that alias may be worse than C's typedef, since C's typedef is equivilent to an alias, but you can use alias on function names as well and I'm guessing you could alias alias's, never tried though. I'm betting you could really obfuscate code with D's alias if you wanted to. D's typedef, on the other hand, gets it right.

Guess you could. But you cannot claim on D for programmers faults. I mean, you could obfuscate code with any language if you want (maybe not only with alias, typedefs or #defines). Yes, I agree that alias could be misused so to be irksome as hell. It's unavoidable from the language creator point of view because alias, #define and typedef are indispensable for things to look nice (sometimes).

Tom