Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Hello Robert,
> 
> 
> RK> Maybe that's a matter of taste, but I prefer simple clean concepts so I
> RK> prefer a simple but powerful paradigma (like in Ruby) over a quite complex
> RK> paradigma (like in C++).  IMHO C++ became so complex because it (i) had to
> RK> cope with the history of C and (ii) has OO not as cleanly and consequently
> RK> implemented as Ruby.
> 
> Look at Objective-C which is also full backward compatible to C and
> you see that (i) is not a real reason for the complexity in C++.
> 
> It's just a bad object design from the scratch. And after the success of C with
> classes, there was to much code to change the basics so they continued
> the tragedy.
> 
> Sometimes you need a revolutionary step forward.
> 
> 

I read that the real reason C++ is complex is because it is a product of 
constant evolution & necessity rather than extensive upfront design.

I got the impression Objective C looked at smalltalk way of doing things 
and tried to design a way to be a "simple as possible" true superset of C.

If Microsoft supported Objective C, then maybe the marketshare would be 
vastly different today for compiled languages.  Simpler usually  wins 
out when programmers migrate from old to new when it is an option.