home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++
- Path: blackbush.xlink.net!slsv6bt!slsv6bt!kanze
- From: kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763)
- Subject: Re: Moving from C to C++
- In-Reply-To: rmartin@oma.com's message of 10 Jan 1996 04:00:22 GMT
- Message-ID: <KANZE.96Jan10113025@slsvewt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>
- Sender: news@lts.sel.alcatel.de
- Organization: SEL
- References: <4cs44p$3pk@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <30F2A6BE.4A54@hboc.com>
- <RMARTIN.96Jan9220022@rcm.oma.com>
- Date: 10 Jan 1996 10:30:25 GMT
-
- In article <RMARTIN.96Jan9220022@rcm.oma.com> rmartin@oma.com (Robert
- C. Martin) writes:
-
- |> In article <30F2A6BE.4A54@hboc.com> "John A. Casavant" <john.casavant@hboc.com> writes:
-
- |> There are really two issues that you need to be aware of when
- |> moving to C++. First, C++ is a language that supports object
- |> programming, but is not a pure object language.
-
- |> Bah, and double Bah. There is no good definition of what a "pure"
- |> OOPL is, so it is meaningless to accuse C++ of "impurity". Even if
- |> there was a good definition of a "pure" OOPL, there is no indication
- |> that there is any benfit to be derived from such "pure-ness".
-
- To be too sensitive, Bob. All the original poster said is what Bjarne
- Stroustrup himself has said. C++ is a language which supports many
- programming idioms; OO is only one of them.
-
- I think that the important point is: the fact that you are compiling
- your programs with a C++ compiler does not mean that you are doing OO.
- --
- James Kanze Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00 email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
- GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
- Conseils, Θtudes et rΘalisations en logiciel orientΘ objet --
- -- A la recherche d'une activitΘ dans une region francophone
-
-