The C# ECMA Standard ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST... ) mentions it several times that one of the main design goals of the C# language was familiarity to C++ programmers. Indeed C# borrowed a considerable portion of its syntax and keywords from C and C++. I suppose the same is true for Java as well.
C++ being a multi-paradigm language it does however have more than the OO stuff, and that “more” wasn’t inherited by Java.
This “more” is things like operator overloading, templates, compile-time types (allowing implicit type construction and user type conversion operators), well-defined rules for automatic storage, etc.
I rely heavily on these things and so does the IMHO elegant standard template library. I rarely use the OO features of C++ (if we define OO as inheritance and polymorphism, I do of course use data abstraction).
I assume the parent is doing something similar, which is what makes him say that Java/C# has nothing to do with C++, as there was a crossroad a decade ago where a lot of C++ users moved away from object oriented programming and instead embraced generic programming.
Being based on something doesn't mean it's like similar. Is C++ like Simula?
My statement was probably poorly phrased, but what I meant is that a modern C++ program is nothing like a modern Java program. The approach are radically different. I'm thinking about what the heavy usage of templates in C++ allows, what you can accomplish in terms of generic programming.
You can write in C++ like you would do in Java/C# but that would be pointless IMHO (complex hierarchy, virtual methods, etc. : exactly what I try to avoid).
It's like saying lizards an birds are similar because they share a common ancestor (dinosaurs).
