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: 7 Feb 1996 16:30:39 GMT
- Organization: The Universe
- Message-ID: <4fak3f$3op@news4.digex.net>
- References: <4cs44p$3pk@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4csb8e$n0i@crusher.ici.net> <4cvebi$f0n@news.iconn.net> <DL0qM3.Lw5@news.zippo.com> <4dm2ip$658@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu> <DLyA2J.rI@news.zippo.com> <3117CE49.6A24@jtec.com.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Steven Hampson (steveh@jtec.com.au) wrote:
- : Perhaps there should be a distinction between the methodology and the tool
- : used to achieve that methodology. There is a general shift to the ADT, OOT
- : methodolgy, but this does not imply that there has to be a shift from C to
- : C++.
- : The best tool for the job is surely the tool that allows the job to be
- : done best.
- : This can be C, C++, Ada, Smalltalk, Assembler - whatever. Languauges
- : should be
- : chosen to fit the task at hand, not the other way round.
-
- Yeauh, but most find it cumbersome and a lot of work implementing
- polymorphism using C.
-
- Elliott
-