On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 09:53, Gregory Seidman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:43:55PM +0200, Frank Gevaerts wrote: > } On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:11:08AM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote: > [...] > } First convince me that object oriented programming results in > } maintainable and debuggable code, then convince me that C++ is a good > } implementation of OO, and then I might consider C++ instead of C. (I > } know not all the features of C++ are related to OO, but OO seems to be > } the main selling point of C++ vs C) > > OO was, at one time, the primary purpose of C++ extending C. It no longer > is. C++ is a tolerable, if annoying, OO language but it is hardly an > exemplary one. It does, however, have templating and the standard library > (formerly the Standard Template Library, a.k.a. STL). This allows some very > powerful and elegant code, and provides an astoundingly flexible library of > common data structures and algorithms. The Boost project is working on > creating an even more comprehensive library (for possible inclusion into > the next C++ standard). It is generic programming, enabled by C++ templates > and OO, that give C++ it's value. > > As an example of how C tries and fails to do the same sort of thing, > consider the standard C qsort() function. The qsort() function is generic, > but lacks any sort of type safety. The C++ templated sort function provides > the same generic sort function, but with type safety.
If you want a C-like OO language with type safety, why not use Java? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA "Why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association even though they be rabid pro-slavery Democrats." Susan B. Anthony, _History_of_Woman_Suffrage_ http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/essays/introduction.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
