But you have an uncontrollable urge to write here? Someone's holding a gun to your head?
> You are not disagreeing with me when you make that claim, you're disagreeing with one of the world's foremost experts on C++.
I guess that settles everything then. Never mind that you're misquoting him.
Look, if you hadn't written the last two paragraphs, I'd have replied to your points, but they strongly indicate it would fall into deaf ears. You're clearly more interested in entertaining the peanut gallery more than actual discussion.
> I guess that settles everything then. Never mind that you're misquoting him.
I'm not misquoting him - you are free to provide a link to the context in which he said what he said.
The worlds foremost expert in C++, author of dozens of books on C++, disagrees with you. I'm merely agreeing with him.
> Look, if you hadn't written the last two paragraphs, I'd have replied to your points, but they strongly indicate it would fall into deaf ears. You're clearly more interested in entertaining the peanut gallery more than actual discussion.
The fact that you entered a thread about C practices, then got all salty when you tried to go with the "but why not use C++?" argument, then devolved into personal attacks is ... well "classy" is not the word I'd use.
EDIT: You can't respond to those points - those are all well-known footguns that are present in C++ but not in C. What were you going to respond with? "No, C++ doesn't have those!"?
But you have an uncontrollable urge to write here? Someone's holding a gun to your head?
> You are not disagreeing with me when you make that claim, you're disagreeing with one of the world's foremost experts on C++.
I guess that settles everything then. Never mind that you're misquoting him.
Look, if you hadn't written the last two paragraphs, I'd have replied to your points, but they strongly indicate it would fall into deaf ears. You're clearly more interested in entertaining the peanut gallery more than actual discussion.