It is easy to study the rules of overloading and of templates without noticing that together they are one of the keys to elegant and efficient type-safe containers.

First, I'd like to see the basic tools such as compilers, debuggers, profilers, database interfaces, GUI builders, CAD tools, and so forth fully support the ISO standard.

Clearly, I reject the view that there is one way that is right for everyone and for every problem.

With the increasing importance of standards for system-level objects such as COM and CORBA, it is particularly important that the C++ bindings to those be clean, well documented, and simple to use.

Defining OO as based on the use of class hierarchies and virtual functions is also practical in that it provides some guidance as to where OO is likely to be successful.

The standard library saves programmers from having to reinvent the wheel.

My list of basic tools is a partial answer to the question about what has changed: Over the past few years, large numbers of programmers have come to depend on elaborate tools to interface code with systems facilities.

Certainly not every good program is object-oriented, and not every object-oriented program is good.

Thus, the standard library will serve as both a tool and as a teacher.

I would encourage nonproprietary standards for tools and libraries.

It is easy to study the rules of overloading and of templates without noticing that together they are one of the keys to elegant and efficient type-safe containers.

I find languages that support just one programming paradigm constraining.

After all, C++ isn't a perfect match for Java's design aims either.

People who passionately want to believe that the world is basically simple react to this with a fury that goes beyond what I consider appropriate for discussing a programming language.

However, when Java is promoted as the sole programming language, its flaws and limitations become serious.

This evolution may compromise Java's claim of being simpler than C++, but my guess is that the effort will make Java a better language than it is today.

Personally, I look forward to better tools for analyzing C++ source code.

The first law of computer science Every problem is solved by yet another indirection.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg.

Design and programming are human activities; forget that and all is lost.

Proof by analogy is fraud.

The principal rule of art is to please and to move. All the other rules were created to achieve this first one.

At the end, the realization is that she had to get to a place in her life where she could drop her guard and make peace with the fact that whether she had a small amount of time, that she had to kind of live it completely through, instead of living by the rules.

I like rules that are broken.

I figured out it was a social thing, what women were allowed to do. At a very young age, I decided I was not going to follow women's rules.

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.

You're a Catholic in Italy when you're born, it's unthinkable to stop being Catholic. You just take the rules a lot more seriously, because it pervades your culture.

There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.

Apart from a few simple principles, the sound and rhythm of English prose seem to me matters where both writers and readers should trust not so much to rules as to their ears.

Some theists in evolutionary science acquiesce to these tacit rules and retain a personal faith while accepting a thoroughly naturalistic picture of physical reality.

Love begets love, love knows no rules, this is same for all.

Although spoken English doesn't obey the rules of written language, a person who doesn't know the rules thoroughly is at a great disadvantage.

In things to be seen at once, much variety makes confusion, another vice of beauty. In things that are not seen at once, and have no respect one to another, great variety is commendable, provided this variety transgress not the rules of optics and geometry.

Unless we repeal the illegal Byrd amendment, American exports will be vulnerable to retaliation, and the U.S. will continue to face a difficult task convincing other countries to make their laws comply with international rules.

What scared me in that debate is that it's not about the ownership rules at all. The vast majority of people don't even know what the rules say, to be perfectly candid. Name all six of them.

Today the tyrant rules not by club or fist, but disguised as a market researcher, he shepherds his flocks in the ways of utility and comfort.

I believe every chess player senses beauty, when he succeeds in creating situations, which contradict the expectations and the rules, and he succeeds in mastering this situation.

As far as critics, I'm not a hip guy. I was never on drugs. Nobody ever felt sorry for me 'cause I went straight or found God. I always had God. I've always like, played by the rules.

If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.

The rules are learnt in order to be broken, but if you don't know them, then something is missing.

Rape, mutilation, abuse, and theft are the natural outcome of a world in which force rules, in which human beings are objects.

Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.

The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they do not know the game.

We see things like reciprocity which are fairly central to our view of ethics. But if you're talking about a set of worked-out rules on what we are supposed to do then, yes, it is a human product.

I am very proud to follow the rules of our company.

Love is the ultimate outlaw. It just won't adhere to any rules. The most any of us can do is sign on as its accomplice.

I loved writing a book in which, in some ways, it's very, very classical, and in some ways I'm breaking lots of rules about what you can do and what you can't do.

The head never rules the heart but just becomes its partner in crime.