Wise man's vision-Reading Notes in "design and evolution of C ++ language" (2)

Wise man's vision

-- Reading Notes on the design and evolution of C ++ language (2)

I have to admire stroustrup with a wise mind: In the early 1980s S, I designed so many features of modern c ++:

● Class-currently, almost all popular object-oriented languages have similar elements and even keywords.

● Derived class (which object-oriented language does not possess the inheritance nature ?)

● Public/private access control (features of popular object-oriented languages)

● Constructor and destructor (also features of popular object-oriented languages)

● Friends, inline, and operator overloading (isn't c ++ frequently encountered? Other languages are unknown)

These features seem so common now and can be found in any book introducing C ++ object-oriented, but at that time I thought there was no ready-to-use reference, some may be the early languages, and there may be some words for reference, but more is found through stroustrup's aura of mind through repeated practices. His design is so far-sighted that the language we use is everywhere throughout the design.

Stroustrup's vision is to accurately grasp the market needs, so that class C and later C ++ can be quickly accepted and widely spread. First, he knows how to win and even try to favor C users, because many people used C, in addition, many features of C, such as the flexibility, efficiency, availability, and portability of C, make stroustrup decided to expand on the basis of C. In this way, not only will c users be more acceptable, but other users will see that it has the advantages of C, combined with the advantages of other languages such as Simula and smalltalk, it will also turn to the class C team. Secondly, he did not forget to keep the advantages of some languages while developing the language advantages, it is possible to persuade users who used to use efficient and flexible C to switch to C and C ++ with classes. He did not design C ++ into a perfect language, but tried to make the language close to the actual application for the purpose of completing the actual project.

PS: The first chapter looks quite comfortable, but why does the second chapter look so uncomfortable? It seems that the applicability of some of the keywords translated by the instructor is still to be discussed, such as inline and constructor.