Re: OT: Why is C so popular?
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 09:53, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:43:55PM +0200, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> } On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:11:08AM -0500, Alex Malinovich 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)
>
> OO was, at one time, the primary purpose of C++ extending C. It no longer
> is. C++ is a tolerable, if annoying, OO language but it is hardly an
> exemplary one. It does, however, have templating and the standard library
> (formerly the Standard Template Library, a.k.a. STL). This allows some very
> powerful and elegant code, and provides an astoundingly flexible library of
> common data structures and algorithms. The Boost project is working on
> creating an even more comprehensive library (for possible inclusion into
> the next C++ standard). It is generic programming, enabled by C++ templates
> and OO, that give C++ it's value.
>
> As an example of how C tries and fails to do the same sort of thing,
> consider the standard C qsort() function. The qsort() function is generic,
> but lacks any sort of type safety. The C++ templated sort function provides
> the same generic sort function, but with type safety.
If you want a C-like OO language with type safety, why not use Java?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"Why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our
platform and association even though they be rabid pro-slavery
Democrats."
Susan B. Anthony, _History_of_Woman_Suffrage_
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/essays/introduction.html
Reply to: