Thomas Hallgren <thhal@mailblocks.com> writes:
> Try to use a similar construct in a more elaborate OO-language (like Java, C#,
> etc.) and you will get an error like:
Just as a point of reference, Java and C# are not "more elaborate" object
systems. For Java at least being *less* elaborate was an explicit design goal.
The designers thought C++ had too many features and gave programmers too much
rope to hang themselves. They thought by removing major OO features that
confuse people the resulting language would be 90% as functional with 10% of
the problems.
If you want a *more* elaborate OO language than C++ you would have to go to,
say, Common Lisp. But I doubt it would support your argument. Common Lisp goes
pretty far out of its way to make sure you can do whatever you dream of under
the sun. In any case it would make a weak argument given the slim portion of
programmers that know Common Lisp.
--
greg