Re: "dselect" replacement team
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Of course I'd much rather write Object Oriented C++ with clear evidence of
> > communication and control than write Object Oriented C with nothing but
> > comments to act as a guide. (I've long since given up on procedural C)
>
> You seem to be suffering from the delusion that C++ is an
> object-oriented language. It's not. It's a _parody_ of an
> object-oriented language. The only object-oriented dialect of C is
> Objective-C, a beautiful and elegant language nobody knows about except
> NeXT programmers. :( Java might be interesting, but until the gcc
> front-end which turns Java into native binaries appears, it's not
> practical for this sort of thing.
Languages only help in the expression of object oriented programs, true OO
design has to be created by the programmer and written into source code. I
can do this in C, assembly, whatever. If C++ is OO or not is irrelavent
because it makes expressing my OO creations easier than C. I'm sure some
other language could do a better job though.
As you said below, the linux kernel is a C program, but yet I would
consider it OO to a fairly high degree simply because of the designs used
in it.
So with that said we could write our OO library in any language. However
right now C++ is the one most of us are most familiar with and is also
the language that I personally have a large base of source to get things
started with.
Jason
Reply to: