Subject: Re: LISP and C++
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Date: 1999/11/18
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <3151917657255713@naggum.no>

* William Deakin <willd@pindar.com>
| Yes. You either use C calling convention for C++, and lose 50% of the
| reason why I program in C++ and not C or wrestle with some ugly
| non-readable names, just beggers belief.  Ugly, ugly and more ugly.

  but it's C++ that is being ugly in this situation -- we're just trying to
  cope.  had the proverbial They standardized their name mangling, nobody
  would have needed to know about it, and just about anybody could use a
  name that wasn't mangled, but instead some longer form that would contain
  the same information.  neither beauty nor elegance of design are part of
  the reason people use C++, so this will never win an argument.  and C++
  people are forever mired in a conflation of representation and value.  I
  was predictably horrified to read that Bjarne suggests that people use
  _different_ name mangling schemes.  the shock, the pain.  :)

| People have suggested ways round this, using trampoline code, for example,
| some of which are moderately elegant. But I am of a mind so as not to be
| persuaded other than that this a type of the lowest form of hackery and
| kludge.

  but shirk not from necessity hoping that it would thereby resolve itself.

  C++ compiler vendors should make an effort to interface with Common Lisp.
  after all, they have the stuff people claim to want to talk to, and C++
  is at fault for being badly standardized.  so go talk to the guys who
  made up this stupid problem in the first place.
  
#:Erik
-- 
  Attention Microsoft Shoppers!  MS Monopoly Money 6.0 are now worthless.