David Crocker wrote... > There is a tendency to regard every programming problem as an > O-O problem. Sometime last year I read a thread on some > programming newsgroup in which contributors argued about the > correct way to write a truly O-O "Hello world" program. All > the solutions provided were cumbersome compared to the traditional > "printf("Hello, world!")" solution. The point is, printing > "Hello, world!" is not an O-O problem!
Amen to that! I made similar remarks in the 'comp.compiler' and 'comp.object' USENET newsgroups as far back as 1991 (see for example [URL probably will wrap] ... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=active&threadm=91-08-148%40comp.compilers&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcblph!kww%2Bgroup:comp.*%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3DUTF-8%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Dactive%26selm%3D91-08-148%2540comp.compilers%26rnum%3D1) I also muttered similar things within the Bell Labs community much earlier than that during a time that C++ was first gaining momentum. I'm of the belief that one should use the appropriate programming paradigm that best fits the problem at hand. Contrary to how some may feel, I strongly believe that does NOT mean that the best solution is always an OO approach. Unfortunately, when all you have is a hammer... [Note: In general, I'm a fan of OO--where and when appropriate.] But this is getting way-off topic, so I'll cease my ranting. (About time he shuts up! ;-) -kevin --- Kevin W. Wall Qwest Information Technology, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 614.215.4788 "The reason you have people breaking into your software all over the place is because your software sucks..." -- Former whitehouse cybersecurity advisor, Richard Clarke, at eWeek Security Summit