|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
>
> > I'm sure there are have been many purists that would say (and did say) that
> > any OO language that's not designed from scratch is only a temporary
> > solution. However, I don't believe that any of these people were closely
> > involved with the design and evolution of C++.
>
> I don't think that's what Noah meant.
>
> If c++ gave methods that did _different_ things than c then it could be
> said to have evolved. An example is bash evolving from sh (and ksh).
>
> However, c++ seeks to replace c's methods with it's own. It retains c
> compiling capability, IMHO, in order to get c programmers to learn c++.
> "Look, you can still do c, but if the fancy strikes you, use these better
> methods, too."
Yes this is actually what I was talking about. ObjectPascal doesn't
replace much if anything from pascal, it just adds onto it. C++ has
it's own way of doing everything... making the language even more
complicated.
> I _like_ mixing c and c++, but that doesn't mean that it's good for me. I
> like perl, and I like being sloppy, but that could make more work in the
> end. I think that the structure in pascal tries to force people out of
> these bad habits.
Hence it was used for teaching quite often.
> I've heard so many people talk about these really cool oo langs (small
> talk) that can't be used for compatability reasons.
SmallTalk is really cool btw. To me there is a balance.. smalltalk is
really cool but not terribly useful for real world apps with no 3rd
party support and bindings. C has all the support in the world but
leave something to be desired imo. Pascal is a middle ground for me.
> I have read a lot of mind-numbing Eiffel advocacy, among it suggests that
> the mess w/ deps in linux seems to be some brokenness in c/c++ itself. I
This would be an issue in any language, though I have to say the way
linux programs do it is a bit odd to me.
> doubt this may be all the story b/c the book goes on to praise java for
> dealing w/ lib problems, but I have had lots of puke on my screen when I
> don't have all my paths set up right. I do wish there was a magic way out
> of dynamic library hell. I don't think that static linking everything is
> the answer, and I do think that apt-get is a step in the right direction,
> but I still have messes w/ libs getting mucked up all the time. Mostly
> this is my own fault, tinkering, but still.
I always though it would be cool to make a larger version of busy-box
with gnome and everything statically linked ;) (if you don't know, busy
box is a replacement for most of the GNU command line tools that are
common like gzip, ls, cat, ps, etc., but it's only one executable,
statically linked. It is linked with lots of different names on the
hard drive, and depending which name is called, a different "main" is
run in the program. This leads to it being very small, and it is sold
for use in embedded systems. The problem of course is you can't add or
update a program without recompiling EVERYTHING.).
Typically pascal UNITS (which are libraries) get statically compiled
into the executable you are making, but in newer compilers, you could
create a dll or so of each one if you so chose.
-- 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
|
|