Re: Emacs history, and "Is Emacs difficult to learn?"

[Emanuel Berg]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> With lisp, you'd have at least to define a macro:
>
> (defmacro define ((fname &rest lambda-list) &body body) `(defun
> ,fname ,lambda-list ,@body))
>
> to be able to read and run:
>
> (define (f x) (if (= 0 x) 1 (* x (f (- x 1)))))
>
> in both emacs lisp, common lisp and scheme.  Therefore here you
> could rightly argue that there's no scheme/common lisp, but two
> languages.
>
> But not for C/C++, I don't think so.

OK, if I made an effort to be as correct as possible, but still
ignoring details that shouldn't be allowed to mess up general
reasoning if they don't matter, I'd say:

- there is C (without classes etc.; i.e., without C++)
- there is C++ (*with* C, almost always).

So there *is* a C/C++, and that is C++!

-- 
Emanuel Berg - programmer (hire me! CV below)
computer projects: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
internet activity: http://home.student.uu.se/embe8573