From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,690ce1f62160d05a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,690ce1f62160d05a X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,690ce1f62160d05a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,690ce1f62160d05a X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: "E. Robert Tisdale" Subject: Re: How to Design an Application Programmers' Interface (API) Date: 2000/08/13 Message-ID: <3996E26E.18DD7E97@netwood.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 657857241 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <39921178.819F6DCB@netwood.net> <399386EF.4F2AA3E6@netwood.net> <3996456C.CAD018D5@netwood.net> <3996C42F.2713C90A@flash.net> <3996BFCE.662A8DFC@netwood.net> <3996E280.955B77FD@flash.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-08-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Brendan Sechter wrote: > Why hide anything? So that the application programmer doesn't access private data members directly by accident. > Do not you have the option not to use it? You use it only through library function calls so that your application program will work even if the definition of the data type changes when you install a newer version of the library. Gregory Pietsch wrote: > If they wanted it, they'd be C++ programmers. C is not C++. > Why not cut through all the layers of OO obfuscation > right down to the bare metal? > That's what C gives you and C++ does not. > > Ah, yes -- > the distinction between the interface and the implementation. > This is fundamental to OO. No. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with objects. It's just good programming practice and always has been. > If I did that, I'd have to retest it to make sure that it worked. > You can't be too careful. Good for you! But we're assuming here that the library has already been thoroughly tested so retesting shouldn't be necessary. > The one thing that made me sick about C++ > when I first encountered it was that philosophical aspect. > If you weren't doing things the way that the high priests wanted you to, > you'd be banished to writing payroll programs in RPG, > or worse, being called an unwashed heathen > who was unworthy even to enter the computer room. > OO has been hyped so much that you'd figure that > it would solve world hunger and usher in an era of world peace. NOT! > OO is a tool; that's all it is. I AM a competent C programmer; > one visit to Richard Heathfield's K&R2 site would prove it > (I've written about a dozen answers to the K&R2 problems). This is all gobbledegook to you isn't it? No, OOP isn't going to solve world hunger and usher in an era of world peace. It just makes it a lot easier to write safe and reliable computer programs that other programmers can read, understand and maintain. Good programmers can wade through all of the hype about OOP and learn to use it effectively. Hackers can't. You may be able to program in C to your own satisfaction but until you can understand the code that other C programmers are writing and learn to write code the way that they do, you will remain a hacker and no one will trust you with important programming assignments.