NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/programmer/6530

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.9 KB

Path: beavis.kronos.com!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Porter Woodward)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Visual E - New E Developer Tool - vedev.gif (0/1)
Date: 29 Mar 1996 11:32:48 GMT
Organization: Software Quality Assurance
Message-ID: <4jghp0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4j7kil$[e-mail]> <4jd2u9$[e-mail]> <4je612$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 158.228.60.147
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7

In article <4je612$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>Stephen B Hodge ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Chad Randall ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: :
>: : Design flaws?  The only thing I can think of is a lack of strong
>: : datatyping.  Other than that, it has a better design in places than C does.
>: : And E is close to Java in design.  Exception handling, no messing with
>: : pointers, automatic memory deallocation, etc.  If Java is the next big thing,
>: : than E can't be too bad.
>:
>: Java is based on C++. All of the things you have mentioned are in C++.
>
>Java is based, *in part*, on C++.  The keywords, style, grammar and format is
>very close.  But, Java's underside is quite clearly different than C++.  I quote
>from "Java in a Nutshell" pg 15
>
>  "C++ programmers should beware, though:
>While Java borrows a lot of terminology and even syntax from C++, the
>analogies between Java and C++ are not nearly as strong as those between Java
>and C.  C++ programmers should be careful not to be lulled into a false sense
>of familiarity with Java because the languages share a number of keywords!"
>
>Java has no pointers.  And while E does not eliminate pointers (it can't
>in theory, and still be Amiga-OS friendly).  It hides pointers much
>better than C or C++ does.

    This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Although pointers can
be a good thing, they are often the most confusing for a new student
of programming.

>
>And I did not know that C++ could deallocate, *automatically*, allocated
>memory upon program exit, no matter how the program ends.
>Could you tell me how?
>
>I did forget that C++ has exception handling.  But it does lack
>an equivalent to "EXCEPT DO", which I use alot.

You're quite right!  JAVA has automatic garbage collection, freeing
the memory of structures no longer in use - C++ does not do this -
hence the need to create "destructors" as well as "constructors".

Yes - although C++ has exception handling - it is not nearly so easy
to code as it is in JAVA.  Simply 'Throw' the exception after 'Try'ing
to do something - then write a few 'catch' routines and you're all set.

Of course, one downside I see is the lack of multiple inheritence.
Although one can argue either way - that multiple inheriting systems
promote lots of uneeded stuff being propogated throughout the system,
to it getting overy complex - I think that 1 level of inheritence is pretty
limiting.

--
****************************************************************
             (Oh, so that's what's on the other side!)
            o   "Sometimes truth IS stranger than fiction."
           o  I can be reached at:
          o   [e-mail] -daytime
       \|/    OR     [e-mail]        -nights
       @ @    OR   http://www.kronos.com/~porter/ -always
___oOO_(_)_OOo__________________________________________________
   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |INTEL  |   |
   |+------------------------------------+ | @ |   |  OUTSIDE  |
   ||  //\                               | |   |   |   |   |   |
   ||\X/--\MiGA - Make up your own mind. | |   |   |JUST SAY NO|
@  |+------------------------------------+ |   |  o|   | TO|   |
   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |*  |   | Micro$oft |
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////