Lan Barnes wrote:
Poor misunderstood C++!
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).
C++ isn't an object oriented programming language, nor does it in any
way require you to grok OOP to use it effectively (although it helps).
Your description of C++ as combining the worst parts of C with the worst
parts of OOP is a fundamental misunderstanding of the language. C++ is
best described as a multi-paradigm language with near perfect C
compatibility, and yeah, this makes it @[EMAIL PROTECTED] complex, dangerous for
the uninitiated, and often the worst possible choice for a project, but
it does provide it with unique capabilities and advantages over most
other languages.
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
Oddly enough, C++ is exactly what it is meant to be as well. ;-) It may
not be what *you* meant it to be, but alas I have the same problem with
every programming language. ;-)
C++, while retaining nearly complete compatibility with C, manages to
provide mechanisms to avoid or mitigate most of C's
limitations/problems. Now, playing with any language with a level of
understanding of it where most of it is "mumbo jumbo" is almost always
going to be hellish (I guess I can make a possible exception for
languages like Smalltalk and Logo, but *certainly* not C).
--Chris
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
