home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
- Date: 13 Mar 1996 23:08:11 -0800
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4i8gkrINNn8o@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <RMARTIN.96Mar13110714@rcm.oma.com> <4i7lup$50t@news1.mnsinc.com> <bksDo8KDp.260@netcom.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <bksDo8KDp.260@netcom.com>,
- Bradley K. Sherman <bks@netcom.com> wrote:
- >
- >Of course you should beware of C hackers! They will beat your
- >object-oriented shop in program size, speed, and data storage
- >requirements, and be functioning in the market while you guys
- >are still conducting 5 hours sessions in abstract genealogy
- >and nugatory reductionism.
-
- I couldn't agree more.
-
- There is still some debate about whether the OO approach is better than
- plain old structured design.
-
- For the most part, I still stick with a structured design that uses
- abstract data types. I can implement the same problem with a lot fewer
- lines of ANSI C than an equivalent OO solution in C++, with more readable,
- simpler code---and yes, with reusable components, polymorphic
- ``container'' data types and the like that have give the design a strong
- OO flavour without the hassle.
-
- Even simply declaring an object in C++ with ``new'' can cause hidden
- side-effects if the constructor/destructor alter global variables!
- Doing this is common; Bjarne's annotated reference manual even
- recommends it. Following the flow of control in when inspecting someone
- else's object-oriented program can be a daunting task.
-
- If you want an example of a hacker's language, look no farther than C++.
- --
-
-