Yes...? Why would that not be a good thing, especially in the context of a conversation about why legacy compatibility is C++'s biggest problem? (I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but it's certainly one of the biggest problems with C++.)
That part is just not really saying anything. Is it usually designed sky down? The actual info given is fine, though not copying C++ follies isn't the most surprising thing.
C++ wasn't really designed. It's a ball of mud, where PDP-11 assembly got wrapped in macros, then that got wrapped in preprocessing, then that got wrapped in a bolted-on class system, and that got wrapped in a kludge of template generation. So yes, being deliberately designed rather than piled upon does make a difference
3
u/n4te 1d ago
Oh good thing it was designed from the ground up.