home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!tessi!eaglet!slipknot!robert
- From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
- Subject: Re: Criticisms Wanted
- Message-ID: <BxJox1.Gq1@slipknot.rain.com>
- Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
- Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
- References: <1992Nov8.170309.12301@cc.gatech.edu> <BxGu0p.D3o@slipknot.rain.com> <1992Nov10.212718.2852@taumet.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:27:00 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Nov10.212718.2852@taumet.com> steve@taumet.com (Steve Clamage) writes:
- |robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
- |
- ||C++ has been reputed to be a language that finally makes the
- ||concept of "software components" realizable. The argument goes that if you
- ||still have to examine the internal workings of component classes to determine
- ||how to best use them, then their value as components has been greatly
- ||diminished.
- |
- |I don't see how this is different in C++ than in any other programming
- |language. You have an interface declaration and (one hopes) some
- |documentation, but how do you know whether the actual component works
- |as claimed?
-
- That's the point, and maybe it's just a question of adequate documentation.
- One of the great claims of OO programming in general and C++ in particular is
- that of software reuse. But if libraries written in C++ are no more reusable
- than libraries written in other languages because the language offers no
- advantages, then why switch?
- ________________________________________________________________________________
- Robert Reed, Devil's Advocate Home Animation Ltd. 503-656-8414
- robert@slipknot.rain.com 5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068
-
- I have a microwave fireplace. I can lay down in front of the fire for the
- evening in eight minutes.
- --Steve Wright
- ________________________________________________________________________________
-