Ken Fox wrote: > Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > Maybe C++ is still too low-level. > > rotfl. 1000 pages of specs and it's still too low-level? Yes, possibly. I'm not arguing that C++ is too low-level, but the poundage of specs has nothing to do with it. > I think one of the problems with C++ is that it's too high-level for > implementing some critical features like dynamic module loading. If it's not too high-level for C, then it's not too high-level for C++. -- John Porter Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.