On 10/22/07, Nicholas Bastin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Object-oriented programming is a design choice, not a language > feature. You can write straight procedural code in C++, and you can > write object oriented code in C. Sure, C++ has some language features > which facilitate object-oriented programming, but it doesn't magically > make your code object-oriented. You can certainly write basic > object-oriented code in C and hide most of the implementation in > preprocessor macros if you so desire.
Well, perhaps what I meant was I personally would not turn to C for OOP. As I said before, I've seen OOP attemps using C and it was VERY unattractive (this coming from a C++ programmer of course). It just doesn't make sense to me why you'd choose an OOP approach in a language that makes it messy over a language that had OOP in mind when it was designed. There are far better languages (which, as you said, have features to facilitate OOP) that I would choose long before I chose C, such as C++. Yes, I agree you can do OOP in any language as it is just a concept, however there are other entities that can greatly affect which language you choose to intake such a responsibility. For example, I'd choose Python OOP over C++ OOP because to me Python code is cleaner and has less syntax redundancy. You get to read the important stuff more quickly. A lot of people would disagree in that whitespace does not make code more readable than operator delimiters, however this is just my opinion. In addition, I'd choose Python OOP over C++ OOP for quick applications that didn't require a great amount of performance (such as a level editor for a game). For the game itself, I'd choose C++ OOP because it is way more flexible and allows me to optimize the game for speed as best as I can, whereas with python you can only optimize only to a certain point (as with any language), which still may not be fast enough. In any case, it's really not fair to compare speed between an interpreted language vs a compiled language. Given what I've learned and things I've come to like, I doubt I'd do any sort of programming ever again that didn't involve some sort of object oriented design. That's just my preference. This preference, in turn, is what motivated my original question. The CPython API interface itself seems modularized, NOT object oriented (only from what I saw). Boost.Python, as so many have already noted, is a wrapper over that interface introducing C++ which provides the OOP I am looking for. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
