[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: backup archive format saved to disk

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:41:44AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com writes:
> >> I've yet to see the appeal of OO.  Then again I've never seen Algol.  I
> >
> > Much of the advantage of OO can be obtained by:
> >    * strong type checkin * garbage collection * ancillary run-time checks
> Those have nothing to do with OOP (that is to say, they are orthogonal
> to it).

That's right.  Strong, strict type-checking and garbage collection 
were known technologies and were embedded in programming languages 
before OO.  But they seem to have entered the main stream of popular 
language use along with OO languages.
> OOP's main advantages would seem to be:
>   (1) improvement of modularity by keeping code related to a particular
>       type in one place even in the presence of hierarchical type
>       relationships,


>   (2) easy sharaing of common code that often results from such type
>       relationships, and

Actually, this sharing gets in the way of (1).

>   (3) making it simpler to code generic algorithms by taking advantage of
>       these hierarchical type relationships.

No argument here.

I may have been condescending, but it did not seem to me that these 
advantages were what was likely to be appreciated by a Fortran 

> > C++ does *not* have these advantages.
> It has many other advantages however, including those from OOP, and more
> unusually, a notational power that makes certain sorts of programs
> _much_ easier to write/read (part of this is the fact that doing so can
> be done _efficiently_ -- it's very common to see e.g. java programs
> which

In any case, in my experience (which included writing a parser and 
static type-checker for C++ in C++), these advantages of C++ do not 
outweigh the lack of secure type checking and garbage collection.

-- hendrik

Reply to: