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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: richard@highrise.nl Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/02/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 217779995 sender: news@tip.nl (The News User) x-nntp-posting-host: 143.177.122.2 references: organization: Highrise Internetworking reply-to: dion@multitask.com.au (Dion Gillard) newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-02-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In , bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes: > >Why is any of this relevant now? Why do I bother with this debate on >"innovation?" Because some of what is said related directly to what C++ >is and should be, and that again affects where it is reasonable to use >it and how it is best used. If you misunderstand some of the fundamentals >of a language, the code you write in it is going to be suboptimal in several >ways. > Well, who am I to judge.. but in my view C++ is basically C with the capability to add functions to structs. Before I tried C++, I would bundle pointers to functions in my C-structs to fake some kind of OO-like bundling of similar functions ;) C++ take this a major step further by actually bundling data and functions together in a struct. But that is what classes are in C++: just enhanced structs! I find that many of the OO-capabilities of C++ are just "crammed in" to overcome the static nature of the language. C++ is by far not elegant in this respect. I get the idea that a lot of features have been braught in on the fly ("hey, multiple inhertiance would be neat. And while we're at it, let's try templates too"). That C++ still works as a OO-language is mostly due to the strengths of the language C itself... it appears to still work even under the weirdest circumstances. In that respect Stroustup made an excellent chouce by using C as a base ;) Greetz, RS