home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: access1.digex.net!not-for-mail
- From: ell@access1.digex.net (Ell)
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Moving from C to C++
- Followup-To: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++
- Date: 10 Jan 1996 21:37:19 GMT
- Organization: The Universe
- Message-ID: <4d1bif$ck7@news4.digex.net>
- References: <4cs44p$3pk@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <30F2A6BE.4A54@hboc.com> <RMARTIN.96Jan9220022@rcm.oma.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Robert C. Martin (rmartin@oma.com) wrote:
- : 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.
-
- All your "Bah"s plus one ;)
-
- : 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
- : ben[e]fit to be derived from such "pure-ness".
-
- There is nothing like everything being a class in an oopl. Of course
- with easy generics, and polymorphism. Yet C++ serves those coming from
- C, those desiring the highest execution efficiency, and those creating
- compiler, system, or OS projects. In these efforts C++ shows both its
- "beauty and power".
-
- Elliott
-