Why is python not written in C++ ?

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <roy-2FC4E0.19455005082010 at news.panix.com>,
Roy Smith  <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>In article <i3e43n$v7c$4 at lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo at geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <roy-6BCFA7.22564104082010 at news.panix.com>, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> > C++, for all its flaws, had one powerful feature which made it very
>> > popular.  It is a superset of C.
>>
>> Actually, it never was.
>
>Yes, there are a few corner cases where valid C syntax has different
>semantics in C and C++.  But, they are very few.  Calling C++ a superset
>of C is essentially correct.

One aspect of C++ is that all standard functions of C are called
in the same way. A large part of programs consists of stringing
API calls together. Those require little work to upgrade to
C++. So from a practical point of view this is very much true.

>
>It is certainly correct from the level of a risk-averse development
>manager deciding if he or she is willing to use C++ for the first time.
>Fear of the unknown is a powerful deterrent.  It's a lot easier to
>accept something like C++ because "it's just a superset of C, and we've
>been using C for years".

Even if it is overhyped, the C++ compiler vendors certainly tried
to make it happen.

>
>I suspect the same effect contributed to Java's success as well.  "Look,
>it's got curly braces and semicolons.  It's just like C!"

Of course!

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert at spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst