begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:51:00PM -0700: > [snip] > I don't think I misunderstand C++. I certainly don't grok OOP (probably > because C++ is the only language I've formally studied that claims to be > OOP).
Don't bash OOP based on C++. C++ is the poster-child for how not to do OOP. If you like modular/structured programming, OOP can be seen as the next step in that direction. (If you don't, then you should probably run away.) While you /can/ do OOP in tcl or perl or suchlike, they're probably not the best places to attempt to grok OOP. I grok'd OOP with Java, but then, my normal coding style in C was described as "OO" before I had stopped bad-mouthing OOP based on my C++ experience. Smalltalk, Self, or Ruby would probably be a better place to start. I'd like to recommend Objective-C, except that the memory management piece is more complicated than I like, plus I haven't seen a decent book on it yet. > I love C because it is exactly what it is meant to me. I recognize its > limitations. I dislike C++ because it retained all C's limitations and > added a bunch of mumbo jumbo that is hellish to use, or at least to use > without causing all kinds of trouble. It's been said that the largest useful subset of C++ is ... C. -- If I do C++ again, I'm getting Andrew's six reference books on my shelf. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
