[linux-audio-dev] (OT) C++ flame war

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 01:04:33 +0100
Martijn Sipkema <msipkema at sipkema-digital.com> wrote:

> You are not forced to define the private data members and functions at the
> same time as the public ones in C++. The way to handle this is to put the public
> interface in a pure virtual class:

In my opinion (please note that this IS an opinion) the method you propose 
is at least as ugly as any other way of keeping a class's private data members
private. IMO, using C and doing

    typedef void Object ;

    Object * Object_new (/* parameters */) ;

    int method_1 (Object *object, /* parameters */) ;

    void Object_delete (void) ;

and then using a struct (return a pointer to it from Object_new()) in the 
implementation file is neater and works better.

If you think C++ is great, then you are entitled to your opinion. In my
experience, the C++ boosters are far pushier with their form of religion
than the people who prefer C to C++.

> I think most of the arguments in the article are not valid, 

Most of the arguments or just the ones relating to C++? I did talk about
stuff other than C++ in that article.

> It can't hurt for to also hear some positive comments on C++ occasionally
> though...

I think C++ gets more that its fair share of the lime light. I am simply 
trying to show that

   1) C++ is not the only solution.
   2) OO can be done in Standard C. 
   3) Some people (me included) might prefer doing OO programing in C
      rather than C++.

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam at mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Hiesenbugs - The bugs that go away when you turn on debugging.