home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!digi!mharriso
- From: mharriso@digi.lonestar.org (Mark Harrison)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Need help implementic data structures of generic objects
- Message-ID: <1992Dec17.150212.24455@digi.lonestar.org>
- Date: 17 Dec 92 15:02:12 GMT
- References: <MATT.92Dec11162629@physics.berkeley.edu> <1992Dec13.002551.778@informix.com> <1992Dec16.141341.2554@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Dec13.002551.778@informix.com> cshaver@informix.com
- (Craig Shaver) writes:
-
- >This group seems to be biased against inheritance techniques in all cases.
-
- "Remember that much programming can be simply and clearly done using
- only primitive types, data structures, plain functions, and a few
- classes from a standard library. The whole apparatus involved in
- defining new types should not be used except when there is a real
- need."
-
- B. Stroustrup, The C++ Programming Language, p.8.
-
- >IMHO, if you do not use inheritance, you are not doing OOP. If you do
- >not care, then you are just using C++ as a variation on C with no real
- >benefit.
-
- For another opinion on this, read George Bosworth's "Objects, not
- classes, are the issue" in the Nov-Dec 1992 "Object Magazine". He is
- cofounder and vice president of Digitalk, so it's probably fair
- to say he's not a C++ weenie.
- --
- Mark Harrison, mharriso@dsccc.com
-