On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:24 pm, Louis LeBlanc wrote: > On 11/12/03 09:36 PM, Lucas Holt sat at the `puter and typed: > > On Nov 12, 2003, at 8:37 PM, Marty Leisner wrote: > > > BTW -- I've been doing "object oriented" stuff in C for years -- > > > its harder, but its doable. You have a much simpler language to > > > deal with. > > > marty > > > > Am I missing something here? When does C have OO capability? > > Structs don't count. What about inheritance and polymorphism? > > That's in the implementation AND application. Just because you CAN > access part of a lowly struct, doesn't mean you have to. It's object > oriented if you OBSERVE the restricted accesses defined by OO. > Whether or not they're there is completely irrelevant. Of course C > has OO capability, it just doesn't have its restrictions :)
don't confuse the language with the philosophy... programming styles - OO, procedural, functional, whatever, are methods or even rulesets. some languages suit one or the other better or worse. One could write functionally in C++ if one had to... but *ouch* ditto C wrt OO. the thing is that modular C programming is scalable in ways similar to OO. that's sort of part way to OO. the rest of it - inheretance, etc. when automated in C++ v's C make C++ more suitable to OO programming. IMHO, ofcourse. -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 "And some run up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stones to pieces wi' hammers, like so many road makers run daft. They say it is to see how the world was made." Sir Walter Scott, St. Ronan's Well 1824 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
