"Michael Langford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > OOP without classes is quite common still. This is how a > good portion of the Linux kernel is written
True, but as I understand it the Linux approach is to use C structs to mimic some class type behaviour. Essentially binding data and functions inside a struct. Is that not the case? What I was referring to was the lack of any kind of class structure at all, a purely prototype driven OOP style. (Somewhat like JavaScript OOP except that it's very easy to fake classes in JavaScript) My first OOP project was in pure C and used a combination of structs and a function protocol to identify objects, it was mostly modelled on ADA and had no inheritance mechanism. The concept got refined into an intenal OOP dialect of C called Cellular C (if I recall correctly) which did have a class type concept (the cell, of course!) before we eventually adopted C++. > very maintainable way to write C, some studies show > that it is more maintainable than equivalent projects > in C++, I agree, C++ - especially in its post v2.0 forms - has become a minefield of temporary objects and unexpected constructor calls. > lots to do with C++ containing not just the kitchen > sink but the bathroom sink and a bidet too). :-) All true and the reason I've mostly given up programming in C++! Indeed one of my biggest fears for Python is that I see worrying signs that people are trying to cram in every programming fad going and there is a danger that it too acquires the kind of baggage that C++ has gathered over the years. -- Alan Gauld Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/alan.gauld _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
