On Nov 12, 2003, at 8:37 PM, Marty Leisner wrote:
BTW -- I've been doing "object oriented" stuff in C for years -- its harder, but its doable. You have a much simpler language to deal with.
First learn how to write good programs in C. Then see if C++ buys you anything extra. If it doesn't, you don't need C++. But I've seen far too much C++ that's just obscure C.
Just my experience and opinion.
Am I missing something here? When does C have OO capability? Structs don't count. What about inheritance and polymorphism?
To me a struct is like a VCR with no record button. You can view the content, but you can't manipulate it with the struct. If i want to do something to destroy the tape, I must apply a magnet from an outside source (much like a plain old function). And classes provide security, much like the tab on the front of the tape. The data is private if the tab is puched out. (ok thats a bad analogy)
If C had OO features, then why do we have C++ and Objective C?
I would agree that you can write programs that do the same thing in all three languages above, but I don't think that OO is a waste of time. OO promotes code reuse. That is the whole point.
Using C++ implies a state of mind. You can write code like in C, but it defeats the purpose of using an OO language.
Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________ FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"