Is this Authentic?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Praveen, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. Praveen

    Praveen Guest

    I am pretty much curious about the authenticity of the following
    article that I recieved from a friend of mine. It is an interview of
    Bjarne Stroustrup in 1998.

    I would appreciate some comments...


    > On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to the
    > IEEE's 'Computer' magazine. Naturally, the editors thought he would be
    > giving a retrospective view of seven years of
    >
    > >object-oriented design, using the language he created. By the end of the

    interview, the interviewer got more than he had bargained for and,
    subsequently, the editor decided to
    > >
    > >suppress its contents, 'for the good of the industry' but, as with many

    of these things, there was a leak.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and

    unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >You will find it interesting...
    > >
    > >*
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of

    software design, how does it feel, looking back?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you

    arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble
    was,
    they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got pretty good at
    teaching
    it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word
    'competent' -
    graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the problem.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Problem?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote COBOL?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Of course, I did too
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods. Their

    salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested

    millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to the

    point where being a journalist actually paid better.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought of

    this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I thought
    'I
    wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so
    difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market
    with
    programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, you know, X
    windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics system, that it only just
    ran
    on those Sun 3/60 things. They had all the ingredients for what I
    wanted. A
    really ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO
    structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the
    only way
    to go if you want to retain your sanity.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: You're kidding...?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix was

    written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very easily
    become
    a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems programmer used
    to
    earn?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix, by

    hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely. This
    would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living too.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people

    have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must
    say,
    it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people

    would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that
    object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and
    inefficient.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: What?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a

    company re-using its code?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early days.

    There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were
    called -
    really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90
    or
    '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn
    from
    their mistakes.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up all

    their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the
    shareholders
    would have been difficult. Give them their due, though, they made it
    work in
    the end.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five

    minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran
    like
    treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block, and
    I'd
    get found out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too
    glad
    to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources just to run
    trivial
    programs. You know, when we had our first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I
    compiled
    'Hello World', and couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB
    > >
    > >Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't

    get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite
    recent
    examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had a major
    disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing
    and
    start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I hear that
    Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and more worried as
    the
    size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate the executables. Isn't
    multiple inheritance a joy?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat down

    and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens:
    > >
    > >First, I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only the most

    trivial projects will work first time. Take operator overloading. At
    the end
    of the project, almost every module has it, usually, because guys feel
    they
    really should do it, as it was in their training course. The same
    operator
    then means something totally different in every module. Try pulling
    that lot
    together, when you have a hundred or so modules. And as for data
    hiding.
    God, I sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems
    companies have making their modules talk to each other. I think the
    word
    'synergistic' was specially invented to twist the knife in a project
    manager's ribs.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at all

    this. You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries? That's
    obscene.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the thing

    to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded. C++ is dying
    off
    now, but programmers still get high salaries - especially those poor
    devils
    who have to maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to
    maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually write it?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: How come?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: You are out of touch, aren't you? Remember the typedef?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Yes, of course.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Remember how long it took to grope through the header files

    only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision number? Well,
    imagine
    how long it takes to find all the implicit typedefs in all the Classes
    in a
    major project.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: So how do you reckon you've succeeded?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project? About 6

    months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a wife and kids to earn
    enough
    to have a decent standard of living. Take the same project, design it
    in C++
    and what do you get? I'll tell you. One to two years. Isn't that great?
    All
    that job security, just through one mistake of judgement. And another
    thing.
    The universities haven't been teaching 'C' for such a long time,
    there's now
    a shortage of decent 'C' programmers. Especially those who know
    anything
    about Unix systems programming. How many guys would know what to do
    with
    'malloc', when they've used 'new' all these years - and never bothered
    to
    check the return code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their
    return
    codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'? At least you knew you had an
    error, without bogging the thing down in all that 'throw' 'catch' 'try'
    stuff.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Does it? Have you ever noticed the difference between a 'C'

    project plan, and a C++ project plan? The planning stage for a C++
    project
    is three times as long. Precisely to make sure that everything which
    should
    be inherited is, and what shouldn't isn't. Then, they still get it
    wrong.
    Whoever heard of memory leaks in a 'C' program? Now finding them is a
    major
    industry. Most companies give up, and send the product out, knowing it
    leaks
    like a sieve, simply to avoid the expense of tracking them all down.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: There are tools...
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Most of which were written in C++.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you do

    realise that?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, and no

    company in its right mind would start a C++ project without a pilot
    trial.
    That should convince them that it's the road to disaster. If not, they
    deserve all they get. You know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie to
    rewrite Unix in C++.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think both he

    and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early days, but never
    let on.
    He said he'd help me write a C++ version of DOS, if I was interested.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Were you?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo when

    we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the computer room.
    Goes
    like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only takes up 70 megs of disk.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: What's it like on a PC?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95? I

    think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game before I was
    ready, though.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me thinking.

    Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish any of

    this.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: But it's the story of the century. I only want to be

    remembered by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for them. You
    know
    how much a C++ guy can get these days?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an hour.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: See? And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the gotchas

    I put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said before, every C++
    programmer
    feels bound by some mystic promise to use every damn element of the
    language
    on every project. Actually, that really annoys me sometimes, even
    though it
    serves my original purpose. I almost like the language after all this
    time.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: You mean you didn't before?
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree? But when the

    book royalties started to come in... well, you get the picture.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Just a minute. What about references? You must admit, you

    improved on 'C' pointers.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I thought I

    had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a guy who'd written C++
    from
    the beginning. He said he could never remember whether his variables
    were
    referenced or dereferenced, so he always used pointers. He said the
    little
    asterisk always reminded him.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very much' but

    it hardly seems adequate.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is getting the

    better of me these days.
    > >
    > >Interviewer: I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor will

    say.
    > >
    > >Stroustrup: Who'd believe it anyway? Although, can you send me a copy of

    that tape?
    > >
    > >Interviewer: I can do that.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >


    Regards,
    Praveen.
    Praveen, Jul 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Praveen

    Sharad Kala Guest

    "Praveen" <> wrote in message
    > I am pretty much curious about the authenticity of the following
    > article that I recieved from a friend of mine. It is an interview of
    > Bjarne Stroustrup in 1998.


    Oh no..not again! Of course this all is bull shit. Read here --
    http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#IEEE.

    Sharad
    Sharad Kala, Jul 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Praveen

    ulrich Guest

    On 20 Jul 2005 04:47:46 -0700, Praveen <> wrote:

    > I am pretty much curious about the authenticity of the following
    > article that I recieved from a friend of mine. It is an interview of
    > Bjarne Stroustrup in 1998.
    >
    > I would appreciate some comments...


    an _old_ joke(?), a parody...


    >> On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to the
    >> IEEE's 'Computer' magazine. Naturally, the editors thought he would be
    >> giving a retrospective view of seven years of
    >>
    >> >object-oriented design, using the language he created. By the end of

    >> the

    > interview, the interviewer got more than he had bargained for and,
    > subsequently, the editor decided to
    >> >
    >> >suppress its contents, 'for the good of the industry' but, as with many

    > of these things, there was a leak.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and

    > unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >You will find it interesting...
    >> >
    >> >*
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of

    > software design, how does it feel, looking back?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you

    > arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble
    > was,
    > they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got pretty good at
    > teaching
    > it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word
    > 'competent' -
    > graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the problem.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Problem?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote COBOL?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Of course, I did too
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods.

    >> Their

    > salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested

    > millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to

    >> the

    > point where being a journalist actually paid better.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought

    >> of

    > this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I thought
    > 'I
    > wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so
    > difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market
    > with
    > programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, you know, X
    > windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics system, that it only just
    > ran
    > on those Sun 3/60 things. They had all the ingredients for what I
    > wanted. A
    > really ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO
    > structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the
    > only way
    > to go if you want to retain your sanity.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: You're kidding...?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix

    >> was

    > written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very easily
    > become
    > a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems programmer used
    > to
    > earn?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix,

    >> by

    > hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely. This
    > would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living too.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people

    > have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must
    > say,
    > it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people

    > would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that
    > object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and
    > inefficient.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: What?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a

    > company re-using its code?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early

    >> days.

    > There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were
    > called -
    > really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90
    > or
    > '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn
    > from
    > their mistakes.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up

    >> all

    > their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the
    > shareholders
    > would have been difficult. Give them their due, though, they made it
    > work in
    > the end.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five

    > minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran
    > like
    > treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block, and
    > I'd
    > get found out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too
    > glad
    > to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources just to run
    > trivial
    > programs. You know, when we had our first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I
    > compiled
    > 'Hello World', and couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't

    > get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite
    > recent
    > examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had a major
    > disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing
    > and
    > start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I hear that
    > Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and more worried as
    > the
    > size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate the executables. Isn't
    > multiple inheritance a joy?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat down

    > and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens:
    >> >
    >> >First, I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only the most

    > trivial projects will work first time. Take operator overloading. At
    > the end
    > of the project, almost every module has it, usually, because guys feel
    > they
    > really should do it, as it was in their training course. The same
    > operator
    > then means something totally different in every module. Try pulling
    > that lot
    > together, when you have a hundred or so modules. And as for data
    > hiding.
    > God, I sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems
    > companies have making their modules talk to each other. I think the
    > word
    > 'synergistic' was specially invented to twist the knife in a project
    > manager's ribs.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at all

    > this. You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries? That's
    > obscene.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the

    >> thing

    > to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded. C++ is dying
    > off
    > now, but programmers still get high salaries - especially those poor
    > devils
    > who have to maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to
    > maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually write it?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: How come?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: You are out of touch, aren't you? Remember the typedef?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Yes, of course.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Remember how long it took to grope through the header files

    > only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision number? Well,
    > imagine
    > how long it takes to find all the implicit typedefs in all the Classes
    > in a
    > major project.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: So how do you reckon you've succeeded?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project?

    >> About 6

    > months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a wife and kids to earn
    > enough
    > to have a decent standard of living. Take the same project, design it
    > in C++
    > and what do you get? I'll tell you. One to two years. Isn't that great?
    > All
    > that job security, just through one mistake of judgement. And another
    > thing.
    > The universities haven't been teaching 'C' for such a long time,
    > there's now
    > a shortage of decent 'C' programmers. Especially those who know
    > anything
    > about Unix systems programming. How many guys would know what to do
    > with
    > 'malloc', when they've used 'new' all these years - and never bothered
    > to
    > check the return code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their
    > return
    > codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'? At least you knew you had an
    > error, without bogging the thing down in all that 'throw' 'catch' 'try'
    > stuff.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Does it? Have you ever noticed the difference between a 'C'

    > project plan, and a C++ project plan? The planning stage for a C++
    > project
    > is three times as long. Precisely to make sure that everything which
    > should
    > be inherited is, and what shouldn't isn't. Then, they still get it
    > wrong.
    > Whoever heard of memory leaks in a 'C' program? Now finding them is a
    > major
    > industry. Most companies give up, and send the product out, knowing it
    > leaks
    > like a sieve, simply to avoid the expense of tracking them all down.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: There are tools...
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Most of which were written in C++.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you do

    > realise that?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, and no

    > company in its right mind would start a C++ project without a pilot
    > trial.
    > That should convince them that it's the road to disaster. If not, they
    > deserve all they get. You know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie to
    > rewrite Unix in C++.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think both

    >> he

    > and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early days, but never
    > let on.
    > He said he'd help me write a C++ version of DOS, if I was interested.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Were you?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo when

    > we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the computer room.
    > Goes
    > like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only takes up 70 megs of disk.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: What's it like on a PC?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95? I

    > think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game before I was
    > ready, though.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me

    >> thinking.

    > Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish any of

    > this.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: But it's the story of the century. I only want to be

    > remembered by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for them. You
    > know
    > how much a C++ guy can get these days?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an hour.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: See? And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the

    >> gotchas

    > I put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said before, every C++
    > programmer
    > feels bound by some mystic promise to use every damn element of the
    > language
    > on every project. Actually, that really annoys me sometimes, even
    > though it
    > serves my original purpose. I almost like the language after all this
    > time.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: You mean you didn't before?
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree? But when

    >> the

    > book royalties started to come in... well, you get the picture.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Just a minute. What about references? You must admit, you

    > improved on 'C' pointers.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I

    >> thought I

    > had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a guy who'd written C++
    > from
    > the beginning. He said he could never remember whether his variables
    > were
    > referenced or dereferenced, so he always used pointers. He said the
    > little
    > asterisk always reminded him.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very much'

    >> but

    > it hardly seems adequate.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is getting

    >> the

    > better of me these days.
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor will

    > say.
    >> >
    >> >Stroustrup: Who'd believe it anyway? Although, can you send me a copy

    >> of

    > that tape?
    >> >
    >> >Interviewer: I can do that.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >
    > Regards,
    > Praveen.
    >
    ulrich, Jul 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Praveen

    Mercator Guest

    Mercator, Jul 20, 2005
    #4
  5. I was astonished, rather believe it is true. because Straustrup's
    comments on C++ itself really hit the point

    Mercator wrote:
    > Sharad Kala wrote:
    > > Oh no..not again! Of course this all is bull shit. Read here --
    > > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#IEEE.

    >
    > Many satires contain a grain of truth ;-)
    blueblueblue2005, Jul 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Praveen

    Guest

    Mercator wrote:
    > Sharad Kala wrote:
    > > Oh no..not again! Of course this all is bull shit. Read here --
    > > http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#IEEE.

    >
    > Many satires contain a grain of truth ;-)


    This particular satire might have been amusing if the writer
    had had an ounce of subtlety, and had made some effort to
    capture Stroustrup's actual voice.

    Stroustrup himself can be much funnier, as in his article
    proposing "Generalized Operator Overloading for C++ 2000":

    http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

    --Nick
    , Jul 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Praveen

    Default User Guest

    blueblueblue2005 wrote:

    > I was astonished, rather believe it is true. because Straustrup's
    > comments on C++ itself really hit the point


    If you believe that to be true, then you are very foolish. A minute's
    check of the internet would debunk it, plus you could go to Dr.
    Stroustrup's own web site and find it debunked there as well.




    Brian
    Default User, Jul 20, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?QWxpZW4yXzUx?=
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    444
    =?Utf-8?B?QWxpZW4yXzUx?=
    Sep 17, 2005
  2. Mattias Larson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    Mattias Larson
    Dec 17, 2003
  3. Vitali Gontsharuk

    Alternative to Authentic View

    Vitali Gontsharuk, Aug 21, 2005, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    590
    Vitali Gontsharuk
    Aug 21, 2005
  4. Adam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,004
    Mike Smith
    Mar 24, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?RGFuIFNpa29yc2t5?=

    HOWTO: Add User To Membership System After Being Windows Authentic

    =?Utf-8?B?RGFuIFNpa29yc2t5?=, Jul 24, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    461
    =?Utf-8?B?RGFuIFNpa29yc2t5?=
    Jul 31, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page