-
There is a paragraph which reflects EXACTLY what I stated as one of the main reasons for Simula to be replaced was, not uniquely, but heavily influenced by the "80% overhead, 20% actual work" effects.
Actual PDF:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/hopl2.pdf
--
Mats
-
Yeah, having your observations acknowledged is a good feeling.
-
I'm certain that Bjarne's History predates matsp's comments in terms of publication time, so I'm not sure whose observations you mean.
-
matsp,
What does what I said have to do with Bjarne Stroustrup?
Perhaps I should give you a context. Having your observations or, for the lack of a better word, opinions, confirmed by what is true is a good feeling. Whether the subject is C++ or what the woman you date really thought of you.
-
What I meant by my post was to point out that my statement that "one of the reasons to create the original predecessor to C++ was Simula67's poor performance for a large simulation", and the linked article clearly states that. So it is not just a rumour/my own understanding that the poor performance of Simula was part of the origin of C++ - Bjaren Stroustrup himself states that as part of the reason.
Sure there were OTHER things that helped C++ become popular (for example, lots of people liked to write code in C, but found that there are drawbacks to LARGE systems produced in C that C++ can improve on - but I still think that stating that C++ was CREATED because C was bad at those things is incorrect).
--
Mats
-
Well, the purpose of my post was to see what other people think and know about these subjects so I could edit my C++ article. It doesn't make any strong points, and the tone is conversational. I have no intention of arguing with you about what your opinion might be. To make statements such as the ones you are making, without research can be a dangerous thing, because people easily believe the ones who have the determination to say those things, whether they are true or not. I respectfully consider all statements made by everyone who contributed to this thread, but I have no interest in arguing with your or anyone else's beliefs on what is actually the truth. If you don't believe that everything is open to interpretation, then perhaps the feeling of being right is for you, but it is not for me.