I predicted then that our C++ coverage would increase if the need arose. And indeed the need has arisen. Lots of programmers are finding reasons to try C++. Some are grappling with new coding styles. Some with new techniques. Many are finding lots more esoterica to master. You'll now find that a typical issue of The C Users Journal devotes substantial editorial real estate to articles on C++. We still differ from the new "object-oriented" publications in one important regard. Few of those articles we now include are preachy. Rather, they are written by C/C++ programmers to help others use this new dialect to advantage. That's been our strength in the C world for years. It will continue to be our focus in the emerging era of C++. And we will continue to cover the huge, and growing, C market for the foreseeable future.

So should we change our name? I cite two other organizations who kept their old names even as they changed with the times. One is the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Many members felt that the focus of that organization had shifted from mere machinery to vastly more important topics. They called for a referendum to keep the initials ACM, but have them in future stand for Association for CoMputing. It was defeated. (I voted against the change on the grounds that computer science would be just an esoteric branch of mathematics were there no fast, reliable, and inexpensive computing machines.)

The other group is the League of Women Voters. When they began allowing men to join, someone suggested that they should henceforth be the League of Voters (or the League of People Voters). My favorite argument against the change was made by one of the leaders. She suggested that they simply explain to men that "women" in this context was a generic term that also included men. The men would understand. If we don't change our name, I'm sure the C++ programmers will understand too.

P.J. Plauger
pjp@plauger.com