|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
>
> There's nothing stopping you from using printf in a C++ program. It's a
> function call and is perfectly valid. IMHO, the intent of C++ was exactly not
> to throw away C, but to add OO concepts. Also, the words are "support
> object-oriented programming", not REQUIRE it. When you write C++ code, you
> often can and do need to call functions with C-style syntax. This is
> perfectly valid, acceptable, and common practice in many of the most OO
> development groups. C-style functions are NOT BAD. They just might not be AS
> GOOD, or as readable in a true OO app.
Well I agree.. I certainly don't do everything object oriented in
pascal, believe me. To make something OOP just for the point of making
it OOP makes it also a waste of time in my opinion. Like I would make
an object with only one method where a procedure will do? not likely.
The same thing applies to most procedural type languages I would think.
> A well written C program is usually a perfectly valid C++ program. I can only
> guess that your teacher was probably trying to get across the concepts of
> writing OOP programs versus procedural programs.
No this wasn't it, it was supposedly some conflicts in the libraries or
inconsistent behaviors. Perhaps it was our particular compiler (code
warrior), or perhaps he wanted to have us pulling in fewer libraries.
> Here's an example: If you have a "C" function that does exactly what you need,
> you don't need to create an object that simply calls that function. However,
> if creating an object, or moving the function call to an already existing
> object, simplifies much of the rest of your code, then do it. IMHO, the
> biggest gains still to be realized from OOP is code readability.
I find the advantages to OOP are readability, but also abstraction and
the ability to easily duplicate things (i.e. a Window Object that I can
make 30 of, instead of some static array of 30 OS window pointers). In
pascal, the abstraction can be gotten without OOP by using Units and
only interfacing part of them. Actually one thing I really like about
pascal is its library ("unit") system and the way the modular
compilation works. C seems to me to just be a big sloppy mess next to
that. On the other hand, I am sure a C programmer would complain about
having to declare everything that is to be exported from the unit.
Maybe there ware ways to do similar things in C that I am not aware of
(certainly compiling into separate .so or .dll libraries would work!)
> <snip>
>
> And, you seem to be trying to indicate that Java stems very closely from
> ObjectPascal and is simply similar to C++ in some elements. I believe that
> you have that entirely backwards.
No I wouldn't try to say "Java stems very closely from ObjectPascal" -
just that a lot of "new" ideas (for C programmers anyhow) were lifted
from OP.
-- noah silva
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|