Lloyd Bonafide writes:

> Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote in
> news:cone.1207346793.375814.4939.500@commodore.ema il-scan.com:
>
>> Lloyd Bonafide writes:
>>
>>> Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote in
>>> news:cone.1207306990.975400.1548.500@commodore.ema il-scan.com:
>>>
>>>> James Kanze writes:
>>>
>>>>> No. You're not comparing things in an absolute. If you call
>>>>> something an "iterator", it is because it fulfills a specific
>>>>> purpose. Implicit in the statement is that "Java iterators are
>>>>> better iterators than C++ iterators". Sort of like "oranges are
>>>>> a better source of vitamin C than apples".
>>>>
>>>> Except that there is no common denominator between Java and C++
>>>> iterators that can be used as a measuring stick. A better analogy
>>>> would be saying that because both apples and oranges are fruits, one
>>>> of them is a better fruit than the other.
>>>>
>>>> Totally meaningless.
>>>
>>> Both Java and C++ implement iterators over containters, and I think
>>> Java containers are better implemented because...
>>
>> Before you can make that argument, you need to define what "better"
>> means. And, what "better" might mean to you, in this context, may not
>> necessarily mean the same thing to someone else, who uses a different
>> definition of "better".
>
> Maybe it will you to preface each post, in your mind, with "in my
> opinion". James' opinion is that Java's iterator implementation is
> superior to C++, and Erik wants to know why he thinks that. No need to
> get your shorts in a wad.
>
> <remainder of cowboy programmer bullshit elided>

I note that you falied to elucidate a counterargument to the lengthy, and
detailed, technical discussion of the relative merits of Java and C++
iterators.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQBH9rRnx9p3GYHlUOIRAgWUAJYy9l2hhGOeIGD3y1QAQN aXzp0QAKCAesSG
oyRevqiQTdn7OjneaUKRBw==
=Dz7x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----