On Sat, June 9, 2007 11:31 pm, Stewart Stremler wrote: > 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.) >
I don't think that undercuts my attack on C++. Actually, Tk in Tcl is already quite OO. And I do understand the thrust of OOP (I think). My reaction was "but that's what we were always _trying_ to do already." Better tools to do a good thing are a Good Thing. That said, I rebel against the unspoken premise that ALL programs call for OOP and ALL OOP should be done in C++ (or even C#, which I know zero about, it being over my M$ event horizon). I personally believe that the devotion to C++ and nothing else shown at my shop comes primarily from two fallacious beliefs. (1) developer machismo -- if it ain't compiled, it's by and for wimps; (2) PHB ignorance -- if it's compiled, no one can ever steal our code. Someone (Chris?) mentioned Python in this context. I say RIGHT ON! The opportunity to get to market first with meaningful scripted applications is the low-hanging fruit of development. Between copyright protection and support, your code is as safe as it needs to be; your ideas are up for grabs anyway (can we say "reverse engineering"?); and if the programs drive or support proprietary HW as ours do at my company, the ideas are the only thing left to steal anyway. But logic has little to do with business decisions. >> 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. > snarfed > -- > If I do C++ again, I'm getting Andrew's six reference books on my shelf. > Stewart Stremler > ... and if there's a Richter 4, you'll be crushed under them. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
