home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.wwa.com!rmartin
- From: rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin)
- 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: 16 Jan 1996 01:13:26 GMT
- Organization: Object Mentor
- Message-ID: <RMARTIN.96Jan15191326@rcm.oma.com>
- References: <4cs44p$3pk@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4cucgo$4c0@myst.plaza.ds.adp.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: rmartin.ip.wwa.com
- In-reply-to: timh@news's message of 9 Jan 1996 18:35:04 GMT
-
- In article <4cucgo$4c0@myst.plaza.ds.adp.com> timh@news (Tim Harvey) writes:
-
-
- Don't let your company cheap out on training.
-
- Spend some money on getting an experienced C++ expert in to not so much
- teach syntax, but to get your guys thinking objects. 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.
-
- Arghh.... Smalltalk is *not* a pure OO setting. There is no such
- thing as a pure OO setting. You can write beautiful
- structured/procedural programs in Smalltalk.
-
- I strongly recommend that if your people need to learn C++ that they
- learn C++ first. The way that you write programs in C++ is vastly
- different from the way you write programs in Smalltalk. Learning
- Smalltalk first will confuse matters terribly.
-
- I do agree, however, that once people have learned C++, and have
- gotten several months of experience under their belt, they should
- learn other languages too. Smalltalk among them. But learning
- Smalltalk first, because somebody thinks it is "pure" is not a useful
- strategy IMHO.
-
- --
- Robert Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered:
- Object Mentor Assoc.| rmartin@oma.com | OOA/D, C++, Advanced OO
- 14619 N. Somerset Cr| Tel: (708) 918-1004 | Mgt. Overview of OOT
- Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 | Development Contracts.
-
-