31 Aug
2004
31 Aug
'04
4:03 p.m.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:15:24 -0400, Pete Bessman wrote
At Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:02:43 +0100,
Steve Harris wrote:
Getting off topic here, but there's a little more to it than that. 1 Syntactic
sugared implementation is much much more preferable to 101 conventions for
doing OOP with void pointers.
Things like typesafety, getting rid of macros in favour of inline functions.
The STL is another real reason to use C++ - the closest we have to a standard
for that sort of stuff. UML etc... There are a lot of very practical reasons
for using C++.
I like the OO-in-C style of programming, its pretty much the best of both
worlds IMHO. C syntax, but no C++ 'features'.
Seriously. You can easily do Real OOP in C; the only thing it lacks
is syntactic sugar. I wish there was a real C++, as in a C that has
just had a few minor, incremental improvements made to it. C++ may
have a lot in common with C in a technical sense, but the mentality
it represents is almost completely orthogonal. (And yes, you can
write C style in C++, but then, why not just use C?) The D programming language looks very promising in
this regard
The best thing I've seen about D is that it removes the C preprocessor - at
last! :)
cheers,
dave