On Wednesday 27 August 2003 07:27, Paul Johnson wrote: > I do have to ask this one: It's possible to write > non-braindamaged code in C++ without learning C first?
Yes. But I think it's more fun to learn OO using Python than it is using C++. And now to over-analyse the term "brain-damaged". Mixing C style (e.g., functions and data structures) and techniques (e.g., CPU and memory awareness) in C++ code (with its abstractions using hierarchical objects and templates) is "brain-damaged" to some critics. But even if you use C++ correctly, your object space may be conceived in a way that is different from how you critic perceives the object space. In this case your code will be "brain-damaged" Solution? Learn C because it's the lingua franca and it works well. The OO learning curve with Python is manageable, so learn Python to build OO solutions. Java is probably a great OO choice too - I haven't cracked that nut yet. The Sun control of Java seems a little...closed...to me. C++ works perfectly for me precisely because it is a mixes C and C++ so easily. I work on a bit-oriented protocol (C part) that I manage with some OO techniques (C++ part). I think my code will earn a place of honor in the "brain-damaged" C++ hall of fame. Recently SCO showed some "offending" code and the chuck was determined to be a memory allocator written by some UNIX and C progenitors. Linus said it was removed from 2.6 by someone because it was judged to be "ugly". Ugly. Brain-damaged. Crappy. Nasty. What's the difference? Code that is deemed beautiful or clever is often either incomprehensible or obvious. Code that works is a gift. -- Mike Mueller 324881 (08/20/2003) Make clockwise circles on the floor with your right foot; now, without looking at your foot, use the index finger on your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
