From: "Geo" 

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:41a11fb4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> VC++ 6 is a reasonable match to C++. C++ is defined by an ISO standard
which
> nobody meets. C is defined by another, and ditto. The only real reason to
> use C is historic or due to the unavailability of a C++ compiler.

There is something I don't understand about C++. Usually I've found that
compared to low level languages, higher level ones are more understandable,
more like english. C++ doesn't fit that pattern. In fact it seems to be
like a less user friendly version of lisp. 

As an example of what I'm saying, C++ is to Visual Basic what Unix is to
Windows. Would you say that's a fair understanding of it?

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5