wants to learn C++
- Thread starter Gingerbread Man
- Start date
And C# is more recent than Java. Does that mean he should learn that?
Just because something is more recent doesn't mean it's better.
C++ is a far more mature language than Java.
And as it has it, the languages aren't particularly similiar, other than some syntactic similarities. C++ is a multi-paradigm language based on a large number of languages including C, Smalltalk, Ada, Simula, etc etc. Java is an "object oriented" (whatever that means) language based mostly on Smalltalk.
-Sirp.
.Yes I realize Smalltalk is 'object oriented'. Since Java is based mostly on Smalltalk, and it is object oriented, it'd be difficult for Smalltalk not to be so. It'd be kinda like a ship that takes most of its design inspiration from a car.
The term 'object oriented' has been hackneyed into meaninglessness - everyone wants to claim their language is object-oriented. Java people will tell you their language is the pinnacle of 'object oriented'. Python people will tell you the same. Perl people will claim Perl is object oriented, although they generally admit that their version of 'object oriented' is a little twisted. Ruby people will tell you that Ruby is like Perl but such that it's object oriented.
C people will tell you that it's actually rather possible to implement object oriented idioms and techniques in C. Some people will tell you that C++ is a great object oriented language, others will tell you its not because some features such as friends violate encapsulation which is one of the key features of object orientation. Blah blah blah and so on and so forth.
As Stroustrup has said, all 'object oriented programming' now means is 'good programming'.
-Sirp.
The term 'object oriented' has been hackneyed into meaninglessness - everyone wants to claim their language is object-oriented. Java people will tell you their language is the pinnacle of 'object oriented'. Python people will tell you the same. Perl people will claim Perl is object oriented, although they generally admit that their version of 'object oriented' is a little twisted. Ruby people will tell you that Ruby is like Perl but such that it's object oriented.
C people will tell you that it's actually rather possible to implement object oriented idioms and techniques in C. Some people will tell you that C++ is a great object oriented language, others will tell you its not because some features such as friends violate encapsulation which is one of the key features of object orientation. Blah blah blah and so on and so forth.
As Stroustrup has said, all 'object oriented programming' now means is 'good programming'.
-Sirp.
Similar threads
