Re: const
- From: Peter Duniho <no.peted.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:43:29 -0800
Zach wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:01 pm, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Zach wrote:
I'm not here to argue that C++ is superior to C# or C# sucks
or anything like that.
Of course you are. You are at the very least making that statement with
respect to a specific feature.
Actually, no I'm not.
Actually, yes you are.
You specifically claim that "const" is something "C++ gets hand down correct". The implication is that C# doesn't. If saying that C# is incorrect and C++ is correct isn't a clear statement that C++ is superior to C#, I don't know what would be.
The rest of your post reads like the usual religious-war stuff: you presuppose the superiority, and then use that supposition as "proof" that someone with a counter-argument must just not understand the superior feature.
Whatever. Fact is, you aren't going to get this in C#. If you want "const", go use a different language.
As for the discussion on the topic by others, there's this great Internet tool out there. Maybe you've heard of it. It's called "Google" and it does a wonderful job finding things on the Internet for you. No doubt you'll have some rationale for discounting every negative comment found on the Internet related to "const" in C++, but the comments are at least out there for you to discount.
Pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: const
- From: Zach
- Re: const
- Prev by Date: Re: Multi-threaded application w/ system.io.packaging
- Next by Date: Re: Multi-threaded application w/ system.io.packaging
- Previous by thread: Re: const
- Next by thread: Re: const
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|