David Hooker wrote in a message to Geert Bosch:

 DH> Of all languages that support OO that *I'm* familiar with
 DH> (C++, Eiffel, Borland's Pascal, SmallTalk, Ada95) - there
 DH> are pros/cons for each over the other in certain aspects. 
 DH> Of these languages, however, it is my opinion that C++
 DH> offers more *flexibility* than any other. 
The point is, that there is much flexibility, but you shouldn't use it. As
much as I want to write really clean, state-of-the-art and properly typed
programs, when I'm doing things the wrong way and I know what I want, I'm
really tempted to do some dirty type-cast to reach my goal. More often than
not, it turns out I was having problems because of a flaw in my design.
Flexibility isn't always good. 

Furthermore, C++ will never be a substitute for the OO capabilities of
SmallTalk. And C++ doesn't have the clean structure and concurrent
programming support of Ada. Just use the right tool for the job.

 DH> programming using a good OO design.  But I don't believe
 DH> that it discourages it either!
It does, especially when looking at most C++ code I have to work with. ;-) 
I think we agree on the point of usage of C++ as objectized C. It's sad.

To get back on the discussion of *OS/2* programming: the statement I want
to make, and which I think is valid, is that OS/2 programmers have multiple
languages to choose from. There's no reason to pretend we all should use
C++ as some people suggest. It sounds like: 'We don't want a language war.
Just use C++.' 

Groetjes, Geert 
--- timEd/2 1.01+