Just a random thought: should we rename C++ to Java--?

(Excuse me…need to go put on my flame-retardant suit now.)

Note: Honestly, I have nothing against C++; for some reason the phrase Java-- popped into my head and I free-associated from there.


5 Responses to “Java--”
  1. No. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that side-effects are the biggest problem in software development, so let’s stop using ++ and --, and instead start calling C++ “sqrt(Java)”. That has the added benefit that if you value Java highly, C++ is lower, and if you don’t value Java much, C++ is higher, as square roots of numbers between 0 and 1 are higher than the number (e.g., sqrt 0.25 is 0.5.).

    1/Java works quite well there too.

  2. Alex says:

    @Ricky: Awesome. I think I’ll just start calling myself Ricky--.

    BTW, if you’re writing -- in any of these comments, WordPress will eat one of them due to some encoding fiasco, so instead use: --

  3. Huh? This is strange. I think we should call C++ “log2(Java)” from now on. For once, as this is a binary view on languages, and for second, as the original idea was to discriminate the 0 bit language.

  4. Joe Darcy says:

    When first seeing C++, Bill Joy wanted C++++-= instead!

  5. Bruce Miller says:

    Why would c++ be called java–? I always thought of java as c++ with all the cool stuff taken out so as to not confuse the moron programmers.