home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newsfeed.direct.ca!usenet
- From: qjackson@direct.ca
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: No struct in C++!!?
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:40:44 GMT
- Organization: Parsepolis Software
- Message-ID: <4g027j$7hs@aphex.direct.ca>
- References: <1996Feb14.151620.5532@queens-belfast.ac.uk> <3121B124.7A28@hooked.net>
- Reply-To: qjackson@direct.ca
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.174.249.25
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- Gunnar Proppe <nervecel@hooked.net> wrote to Georg Woste:
-
- >I've just been reading _The C++ Programming Language_ by Bjarne
- >Stroustrup, the creator of C++, and he addresses this question. While
- >he does say that (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here) the object
- >paradigm is usually much easier to follow (once you get it) and to
- >maintain, there are cases where it just becomes a pedantic exercise to
- >try to fit a problem into a set of objects. When you need a struct,
- >use a struct; don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole.
-
- In a recent email exchange with Stroustrup, he agreed that for certain
- systems, forcing everything to be an object, is, as I put it to him,
- "over-engineering."
-
- This in the context of lexical analysis, which is highly
- character-based.
-
- I am currently porting a non-OO pattern matching langauge interpreter
- to C++ -- and am about 40% done the port. I have been able to
- ecncapsulate some of the system into classes, but so far, most of the
- objects are simply abstractions of the states of a language
- interpreter -- preprocessing, lexical analysis, syntax checking, et
- cetera. Some of the likely candidates for class encapsulation have
- remained procedural within the casing of the different state-classes
- for conceptual as well as performance reasons.
-
- Cheers,
-
-
-
- --
- |
- Parsepolis Software | Quinn Tyler Jackson
- "ParseCity" | (aka 'Jamshid')
- >--------------------------| qjackson@direct.ca
- |---------------------->
-
-