5 Feb
2003
5 Feb
'03
10:31 p.m.
> 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 private. IMO, using C and doing
I don't see what makes the method I propose, and that most C++ programmers
use, ugly. It is much cleaner and explicit that your method below.
typedef void Object ;
Object * Object_new (/* parameters */) ;
You cannot create an Object on the stack. With C++ classes you can. This
makes resource management much easier.
int method_1 (Object *object, /* parameters */) ;
This is not type safe. I suppose this function method_1 then calls another
function
via a pointer stored somewhere in *object?
void Object_delete (void) ;
void Object_delete(Objects *object); ?
and then using a struct (return a pointer to it from
Object_new()) in the
implementation file is neater and works better.
I think it is less flexible, less readable and error prone.
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++.
Hmm. I tend to think it's the other way round. (the standard "C++ is slow",
"C++ isn't really OO", etc. arguments are quite often seen.)
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. 2) OO can be done in Standard C.
Sure. But the language does not support it, it merely enables its use.
3) Some people (me included) might prefer doing OO
programing in C
rather than C++.
It is not up to me to tell you what language to use. As you in your article
talked
how you think C is a better language, I gave my point of view.
--ms