Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency

[Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu>]

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>
> when people argue about whether something is pure or not, they must have
> ulterior motives.

Yeah, like setting the record straight . . .

Look, person A said that C++ wasn't a "pure" OOPL.

Person B asked "Why?"

Person C (me) answered person B's question -- CORRECTLY.

Everybody gets offended at this, as if person C blasphemed
against someone's god(s).

Why?

> ulterior motives. You can't believe that people put this much energy into
> arguing about something that is just terminology.
> 
> what is going on here is the underlying reasoning
> 
>   x is pure
>   pure is good
>   therefore x is good

Nope, nope, nope, a thousand times, nope.

It's more like:

	X is pure

	Y is not pure

	Therefore, it may be easier to do some
	things in Y than it would in X. You CAN
	do these things in X, but the result is
	a bad implementation of X's paradigm.
	You may be better off using Y. If you
	need to use X's paradigm, then there
	may be advantages to using X instead of
	Y, but maybe not.

I repeat: Why do people take offense at this?

> at least this syllogism doesn't have a divided middle, but it's really
> pretty thin! Why not argue about specific technical features, whose presence
> or absence is objectively determinable, and then discuss why or why not
> you think the features is a GOOD THING!

The fact that Y directly supports multiple programming
paradigms IS a "technical feature." The fact that X does
NOT is ALSO a "technical feature."

There are pros and cons to both:

			PRO:			CON:

	PURE:		generally cleaner	somewhat rigid,
			implementation		since only one
						paradigm is
						supported

			simpler, more		may require
			consistent syntax	retraining,
						minimal skillset
						reuse

	IMPURE:		allows the use of	implementation
			current paradigm	may be complex,
			skillset		inelegant

			generally more		synatx is less
			flexible		consistent

	etc.

Like all such issues, simply saying that "pure is good
and impure is bad" is simplistic and reveals ignorance
on the part of anyone making such a statement. It may
be useful to distinguish between the two, and it may
not, depending on the situation. Saying that the
distinction is universally useless is just as simplistic
and ignorant as saying "pure is good and impure is bad."


				Curtis Bass
				Software Systems Specialist II
				University of Texas Medical Branch