Re: backup archive format saved to disk
Ron Johnson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 17:23, Miles Bader wrote:
Probably. OOP is not a magic bullet, and bad programmers will still
produce bad programs (and classes and libraries and ...).
But it's the In Thing, and so it's got to be good! :\
However OOP does offer a genuinely useful tool.
One can do OOD and OOP with any language. I've done OOP in
assembler. C++ has syntactic support for OOP, which makes
it easier, that's all. Some languages encourage or discourage
certain techniques of program design and implementation.
C makes it easy to write procedurally, but provides meager
support for object programming. It can be done, but C does
not encourage it as much as C++, because C does not have
very much syntactic support for it.
One can *always* do an OOD.
I've seen plenty of C++ with pure data objects being acted upon
by pure procedural objects.
One can write bad code in any language.
One can write good code in any languge.
I've seen (and written) assembler which I'd rather maintain
than some written in C or FORTRAN, or Pascal, or C++.
OOD and OOP are tools. Some know how to use tools well, some
misuse their tools no matter how good they are.
Assembler takes more discipline to produce good maintainable
programs, because it has little to encourage good practice
and discourage bad practice.
C is somewhat like a high-level assembler. It also has little
to encourage good practice, and discourage bad practice, though
the ANSI (now ISO) versions went a long way to making it do
a better job.
C++ has more syntactic support for good practice is all.
It doesn't have much to discourage bad practice.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply to: