On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:35:23AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:43:55PM +0200, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
>> First convince me that object oriented programming results in
>> maintainable and debuggable code, then convince me that C++ is a good
>> implementation of OO, and then I might consider C++ instead of C. (I
>> know not all the features of C++ are related to OO, but OO seems to be
>> the main selling point of C++ vs C)
>
>I thought C was pretty object-oriented, unless I'm totally confused on
>the concept. (If not, what does .o stand for if not Object?)
Different kind of object! '.o' is the suffix to denote object code, cf.
'.so' is shared object (also called DLL, or DLO).
Any language can be used to program object oriented (to various
degrees). Some languages have constructs and features to support that
style of programming, hence people call them object oriented languages.
C is not considered to be an object oriented language.
/M
--
Magnus Therning mailto:therning@sourceforge.natlab.research.philips.com
PGP:0xD3BC7468 +31-40-2745179 http://pww.innersource.philips.com/magnus/
One, demonstrations always crash. And two, the probability of them crashing
goes up exponentially with the number of people watching.
-- Steve Jobs
Attachment:
pgp009aJcI2dC.pgp
Description: PGP signature