Although a distaste for C++ and baroque object frameworks is about the worst argument for using C instead that I can imagine, and that's exactly what the GNOME project did.
You misunderstand me. I don't have a distaste for C++. If QT were written in C++ I would not object. Instead they decided that they would write in in C++ but bodge on top of that a meta-layer of their own which is preprocessed and then becomes C++.
some grown-up descendant of Smalltalk will come along and blow away all this crap with malloc(), pointers, null-terminated strings, unchecked arrays
C++ with the STL rarely needs new and delete (the C++ equivalent of malloc and free). However, if those are your main sticking points in an OO programming language then, if you forgive the grotesque grammar, "Java are the droids you're looking for" (shame that it runs like a lame, lazy snail on moggadon).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-12-01 07:02 am (UTC)You misunderstand me. I don't have a distaste for C++. If QT were written in C++ I would not object. Instead they decided that they would write in in C++ but bodge on top of that a meta-layer of their own which is preprocessed and then becomes C++.
some grown-up descendant of Smalltalk will come along and blow away all this crap with malloc(), pointers, null-terminated strings, unchecked arrays
C++ with the STL rarely needs new and delete (the C++ equivalent of malloc and free). However, if those are your main sticking points in an OO programming language then, if you forgive the grotesque grammar, "Java are the droids you're looking for" (shame that it runs like a lame, lazy snail on moggadon).