home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.lmu.edu!aminier@popmail.lmu.edu
- From: Ray Toal <rtoal@eecs.lmu.edu>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: C++ vs Ada for large project
- Date: 11 Feb 1996 03:36:53 GMT
- Organization: Loyola Marymount University
- Message-ID: <4fjo8l$251@ux1.lmu.edu>
- References: <w4wx5wc1a2.fsf@cln46ac> <4ffjrq$i8k@qualcomm.com> <4fgn1t$ku8@nntpa.cb.att.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.242.68.31
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
-
- ka@socrates.hr.att.com (Kenneth Almquist) wrote:
- >Here is a real life story which illustrates why ".h" files are not
- >a substitute for modules.
- [relevant example snipped]
-
- True, .h files really are not a substitute for modules and header
- files including other header files do tend to make a mess of things,
- but two comments:
-
- 1. The C (and to some lesser extent C++) philosophy regarding
- the construction of large software systems is that it is something
- extra-lingual - in other words, left to program development
- "tools" (unlike Ada which in my opinion wisely defines the
- physical structuring of the system in the source code)
-
- 2. C++ has namespaces (now) which greatly help.
-
- I do wonder, though, to what extent the "newer" features of C++ (strings,
- namespaces, etc.) will be used in practice. There are a lot of
- programmers who get by with header files, char*'s and so on.
-
-
-