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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: vlad@world2u.com (vlad) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207705060 x-nntp-posting-host: i123.155.world2u.com references: <32CCE4ED.6A21@online.no> <5ajo99$khu@panix.com> <32ce7009.280817694@news.zip.com.au> x-nntp-posting-user: (Unauthenticated) x-trace: 852395951/20677 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: skaller@maxtal.com.au (John (Max) Skaller) wrote: >Here' my opinion. Stroustrup is to be applauded for making a powerful >"non-religious" language available to everyone. C++ is not a clean >language. It's quite messy and hard to use. But it is available. >No one knows how to design a quality system -- and _also_ make >is widely available. Bjarne decided "having better than what we have" >was better than some intangible thing no one had. >Is C++ innovative? Too right it is. >It has the most powerful support for genericity available >in any widely used commercial language. (Sorry, Ada doesn't count, >Eiffel is borderline, current Java is a backward step. If there >is any competition it is from Smalltalk [which uses >dynamism instead]). >Is it "pure OO"? No. Thank goodness. It has something >much better -- a vague and not very good appoximation >to a new methodology which provides vastly superior >reusability, categorical progamming. The evidence >is in Standard (Template) Library which is one of the >most reusable commercial libraries available for any system. >There is hardly any inheritance at all in the C++ Standard Library. >It is not an "Object Oriented" library. 80 or so members of the C++ >committee, however, thought it was the best choice for C++. >Is C++ innovative? Of course it is. It was one of the FIRST mainsteam >language to provide class based object orientation and go on >to something much better before standardisation has been completed. >Modern C++ has made TWO paradigm shifts. Most people >haven't made the first (to OO) yet it is already being >replaced. Funny, I wanted to write almost the same think. I want to express my support to your ideas, so you will be not alone when religious OO fanatics will be spitting on you. Vlastimil Adamovsky ** C++ and Smalltalk consultant ** * http://www.stepweb.com *