Comment it
Hi, this is my homework question:
A language expert Mr. LG objects the designers of C++ on the bases of following two arguments:
·A single looping construct is sufficient to cover all types of situations.
·Designers of C++ have not done any good with themselves and C++ programmers by making things complex with provision of three different looping constructs.
I want to get idea how to comment on this situation, plz give me any idea.
Thanks.
A language expert Mr. LG objects the designers of C++ on the bases of following two arguments:
·A single looping construct is sufficient to cover all types of situations.
·Designers of C++ have not done any good with themselves and C++ programmers by making things complex with provision of three different looping constructs.
I want to get idea how to comment on this situation, plz give me any idea.
Thanks.
You can use Reductio ad absurdum here.
· Writing machine instructions manually is sufficient to create program of any complexivity.
· Designers of any programming language have not done any good with themselves and any programmer by making things complex with provision of loads of different constucts which are all maps to restricted instruction set.
· BTW CPU designers are guilty too for introducing large amount of ultimately redundand instructions as they cannot do anything you could not do before, as CPU were Turing-full before too.
· Writing machine instructions manually is sufficient to create program of any complexivity.
· Designers of any programming language have not done any good with themselves and any programmer by making things complex with provision of loads of different constucts which are all maps to restricted instruction set.
· BTW CPU designers are guilty too for introducing large amount of ultimately redundand instructions as they cannot do anything you could not do before, as CPU were Turing-full before too.
I have shown that using exactly same argumentation you can object to anything. As many inventions, changes or additions are not bringing anything completely new, but instead making using already existing things easier.
Argumentation that something is not needed because it can be replicated by existing constructs is usually invalid.
Argumentation that something is not needed because it can be replicated by existing constructs is usually invalid.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.