On 8/29/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote: > On 8/29/2013 12:45 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >> (I really don't have time to do this.) >> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM, >>> [Somebody replied to somebody, arguing that C can't do objects.] >> >> The syntax does become obtuse, unfun, cluttered, etc., but it can be >> done. >> > > I didn't say C can't do objects. I said it can't do Object Oriented > Programming. Two entirely different things. > >> (To get the neurons connecting, think about early objective-C, when >> the "object" stuff was done with a special purpose pre-processor. >> >> Shoot. Don't forget that C++ itself was once a pre-processor for C.) > > That's like saying C is a preprocessor for assembler. Sure, the > original C++ tools were preprocessors. However, they were preprocessors > which provided the tools necessary to do OOP.
Good start. >> Admittedly, the "object" syntax becomes a separate syntax and language >> from the C part when you do OOP in unadorned C. You have to leave the >> basic operators (+-*/%, etc.) out of the object-oriented language and >> syntax. (Which is part of the reason it becomes unfun.) >> > > Please show how you can do inheritance and polymorphism in C. Not so good finish. Looking at the above, we could say "use an old/original preprocessor"? Or do that preprocessors work by hand? > And why > do you need to leave the basic operators out? They are inherent to both > languages. > >> You have to use #include skillfully, and you have to explicitly put >> function pointers in structures. It kind of turns things upside down, >> a bit, and a little inside-out. It'll make even seasoned C programmers >> seasick. And the syntax is not as flexible as C++. >> > > Again, please show how to do inheritance and polymorphism in C. As above ... >> Which is all why C++ was written as a separate language. >> >> But it can be done. > > Once again, please show how to do inheritance and polymorphism in C. Next you'll be saying you can't do functional or modular programming in machine code... >> By the way, mathematically speaking, objects are machines. > > Maybe mathematically speaking, but we're talking programming here. In > programming, variables have state. Functions have behavior. Objects > have both state and behavior. Mathematically, we make ... declarations or assertions :) 0A This byte of ram we shall call a variable. 0B This byte of ram we shall call a pointer. 0C This byte of ram shall be the program start instruction. It is not only reasonable, but useful to some people learning, to say that "a programming object ... is like a machine". So let me "fix" the statement: "Mathematically speaking, objects are machines; programmatically speaking, objects are like machines." That wasn't so hard was it? Lets be flexible in our understanding of each other, when doing so causes no problem, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQpQbrXeBfUS=s10zwwbchdpn2ebcxcaxklizha34-...@mail.gmail.com
