Lazy is all relative. :-) One of the features of C++ is that the reuse lets me get more done by writing less code. The reuse level is (claimed to be) higher than C and other strictly procedural languages. There is something about my mind that screams *too tough* at C++. Not that I don't know it or can't use it. But it "feels" too complex. Like there should be an easier way. We had a case at work the other day where a "C" header was being included in some places (time.h) and the C++ version (time.h) was being included in other places. Because of that, function calling wasn't working properly. Because of the namespacing of struct tm. How subtle is that? Maybe I am lazy, but I would *far* rather not have to face those issues. Don't get me wrong - C++ will not be going away from OBOS or the rest of the world any time soon. But I think that there is a real place for developers who don't want to climb that kind of a learning curve just to get some simple app written. >> > ...Because I'm looking around (MS Windows platform) and I see that >> > A BUNCH of programmers, don't like C++, they prefer BASIC OR >> > DELPHI!!! (... they are to lazy...:-) >> >> Why would you want lazy developers to write software for you? > >Agreed, but before we accept "lazy" as the excuse, let's consider Ada. >Ada is hated by some developers because it is extremely fussy. >However, the fussy nature of the compiler enforces good programming >habits, demands correct code, and often catches far more mistakes than >would a compiler from a language such as C or C++, or even Pascal. >Thus Ada can help to reduce development time and cost by doing a lot >more of the debugging work in the compiler, before the program will >even compile. > >So while some developers may hate the fussy nature of Ada, or even >consider it too "wordy," the language is quite superior to most others >in terms of consistency, error-checking, and low development times. > >Pascal has some similar properties, to a lesser degree, as compared to >C, C++, etc. Java is much more type-safe than C and C++, so it is >slightly better in this sense as well. > >BASIC certainly has its place, and was my primary language for several >years (QuickBASIC under DOS), though I have transitioned to Pascal now; >I choose to use Pascal instead of C or C++, certainly not because I am >lazy (although I probably am to some degree), but because I recognize >it as a superior language, and because I like programs that actually >work ;-) > > >Lazy isn't choosing one language over another, but rather quickly >releasing slowly-developed buggy code (M$ is the canonical example >here, of course). > >Better a slow Java program with no bugs than a fast Assembler program >that crashes every ten seconds.