On 9 June 2013 02:39, Walter Bright <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/7/2013 8:59 PM, Manu wrote: > >> Because they embody functionality, not just data. That's just how many >> many >> programmers write code. >> Go to university for a couple of years, see what they tell you... ;) >> Some of these systems can effectively be considered plugins. Consider >> OpenGL/DirectX? DirectSound/XAudio? Linux has a million back-end API's to >> choose >> from. >> I can see why many people feel it's natural to design their API's/systems >> that >> way, right or wrong. >> > > > So they don't need to be classes at all. It's not about embodying > functionality vs data. It's about having a value type vs a polymorphic ref > type. > Hey? I'm not sure what you're saying.. I just said that people do use classes. And that implies a ref type with some amount of polymorphism. These API's are reference based, and there is always a few virtuals. And these are just trivial examples, a large game unifies a lot of code from basically all fields of computing. Trust me, I wouldn't bother spending all this time making a noise about the performance characteristics of classes if we didn't want/use classes.
