NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part1/2201

Text File | 1996-08-06 | 3.4 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++
Path: blackbush.xlink.net!slsv6bt!slsv6bt!kanze
From: [e-mail] (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763)
Subject: Re: Moving from C to C++
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 16 Jan 1996 01:02:52 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: SEL
References: <4cs44p$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jan 1996 13:12:18 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
C. Martin) writes:

|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) writes:

|>    In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
|>    C. Martin) writes:

|>    |> In article <[e-mail]> "John A. Casavant" <[e-mail]> 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.

|> Well, perhaps I was a bit sensitive.

|>    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.

|> An associated point, which is just as important, is: The fact that you
|> are compiling with X (where X can be any language you like
|> e.g. Smalltalk, Eifel, etc), does not mean that you are doing OO.

Probably true.  At the very least, the choice of languages does not
imply in any what the choice of methodologies for analysis or design.

But...  In practice, the `similarity' of C and C++ does encourage
people to continue to do things in the same old way.  Doing a small
project in Smalltalk, for example, would probably do a lot to break
the old patterns in your way of work, simply because the language *is*
different.

More generally, I think that in the same way learning a foriegn
language requires learning new thought patterns, and thus acquiring a
certain critical point of view with regards to your traditional
thought patterns, learning a distinctly different programming language
cannot help but improve your programming in your principal language.

This is not just an OO question.  For example, I would love the
opportunity to do an application in a functional language.  Learning a
completely new idiom would open up new horizons, which I would no
doubt also exploit in C++.
--
James Kanze         Tel.: [phone]        email: [e-mail]
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