Steven Bennett wrote:
Someone stated that using ANSI C would be best but that we would definitely want to use the object oriented extensions to make it object oriented C (not C++)... Perhaps that is ANSI C today... I dunno... I haven't programed in C for 5 years and perhaps ANSI has certified an updated C spec to include the object oriented routines/extensions.Straight ANSI C in source form is probably the most portable thing out
there, and in a statically linked library (for each platform) is a close
followup, requiring only a recompile for each platform. Putting it into a
DLLs or the like are also possible, but will require some platform specific
code.
So I'm thinking. I'm really glad that there's been a push to use C over all else, as I know that it still remains more portable than any other major language w/o having to install a platform specific VM. I am wondering if the object oriented extensions would damage the portability, or if it might not improve the entire task of creating organized referenceable data structures.
The items that would be yes/no's to OO inclusion would be. 1. portability 2. speed 3. size (bloat) 4. functionality
If all these are comparable between C & OOC...
Again, I may not know what I'm talking about here. I may be asking to include apples with apples.
-- ||
Christian Marcus Cepel | And the wrens have returned & [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq:12384980 | are nesting; In the hollow of 371 Crown Point, Columbia, MO | that oak where his heart once 65203-2202 573.999.2370 | had been; And he lifts up his Computer Support Specialist, Sr. | arms in a blessing; For being University of Missouri-Columbia | born again. --Rich Mullins
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
