Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Other programming languages (Was: Command line
 globber/tokenizer library for C?)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:30:29 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <20240913113029.000004ee@yahoo.com>
References: <lkbjchFebk9U1@mid.individual.net>
	<vbumi6$8ipp$1@dont-email.me>
	<vbupqe$1t2d8$1@news.xmission.com>
	<vbus74$9k96$3@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vbusji$1t31q$2@news.xmission.com>
	<vbut08$9rul$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vbv212$altk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vbvq59$esm6$10@dont-email.me>
	<vbvr73$fdts$1@dont-email.me>
	<vc0504$ks2t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 10:30:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="46d778e366440aa5cd4ab92ae9134f42";
	logging-data="479852"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193PVsnbdTLuoizy6Oktpos8NwJpV9yB+E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v0ipbDaxMk8HCgVr46HSTcfi2zQ=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2514

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 01:37:08 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 18:50:11 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
>=20
> > On 9/12/24 18:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: =20
> >>
> >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:40:17 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> >>  =20
> >>> A lot of early C++ programs I've seen were just, umm, "enhanced"
> >>> "C" programs. =20
> >>=20
> >> Given that C++ makes =E2=80=9Cvirtual=E2=80=9D optional instead of sta=
ndard
> >> behaviour, I=E2=80=99d say that C++ is in fact designed to be used that
> >> way. =20
> >=20
> > Like many other aspects of C++, that was dictated by a necessity of
> > remaining a certain minimum level of backwards compatibility with
> > existing C code. =20
>=20
> No it wasn=E2=80=99t. OO was an entirely new feature, with no counterpart=
 in
> C, so there was nothing to maintain =E2=80=9Cbackwards compatibility=E2=
=80=9D with.

Agreed.
Method syntax was entirely new with no backward compatibility
restrictions.=20
BTW, in these sort of discussion I'd rather avoid in-concrete words,
like "OO".