home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: gmrc.gecm.com!newsmasters
- From: paul.johnson@gecm.com (Paul Johnson)
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Moving from C to C++
- Date: 10 Jan 1996 08:56:35 GMT
- Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre
- Message-ID: <4cvv03$1nb@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
- References: <4cs44p$3pk@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4cucgo$4c0@myst.plaza.ds.adp.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: polonius.gmrc.gecm.com
- X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7
-
- In article <4cucgo$4c0@myst.plaza.ds.adp.com>, timh@news says...
- > One way to do this
- >is to send your guys. . . not to C++ training, but to a Smalltalk class
- >where they won't be tripped-up by what they already know about C, and where
- >they are forced to work in a pure OO setting.
-
- I'd second this, except to recommend Eiffel over Smalltalk. Eiffel has
- types for variables (like C++) whereas Smalltalk has types only for objects.
- Eiffel also has a built-in language for defining the semantics of interfaces
- as well as their syntax. This emphasises the behaviour and encapsulation
- provided by your classes, and so promotes good design from the beginning.
-
- In fact, after programming in Eiffel for a while, you might prefer it to
- C++. Either way, the design-level concepts in Eiffel are important to good
- OO programming, and hence Eiffel is a good way to introduce structured coders
- to OO thinking.
-
- BTW, don't assume that your training costs are proportional to the number of
- languages: they are not. The main cost (as others have noted) is going to
- be getting your programmers and designers thinking objects. Learning syntax
- is easy in comparison. Anyway, both Eiffel and Smalltalk are MUCH simpler
- than C++.
-
- Paul.
-
- --
- Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
- +44 1245 473331 ext 2245+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
- Work: <paul.johnson@gmrc.gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
- Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
-
-