Aaron Van Couwenberghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have grown increasingly aware of FUD of this type about C++ and OO
> languages. OO is designed to *increase* interoperability, flexibility, and
> extensibility -- definately not the other way around.
OO isn't limited to C++, and C++ isn't limited to OO. The two
overlap, but they are far from identical. Some people dislike C++
because it's not OO *enough*!
C is generally far more interoperable with other languages (even other
OO languages) than C++ is. C++ is great if you're *only* using C++,
but if you're using a different language, with a different object
model (or none), you're in trouble. References to alien, polymorphic,
multiply-inherited objects are scary, especially when much of their
structure and behavior is officially defined as "implementation
defined" by the language standard.
But C has its own problems, not least of which is that it's a
primitive procedural language with no built-in OO features to speak
of. And with emphasis on "primitive".
I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into
a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare
ya! :-)
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
