From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <5lat08$h7k$4@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Henry Baker (······@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <··········@research.att.com>, ··@research.att.com (Bjarne
: Stroustrup) wrote:
: > I do not believe that for most people and organizations a radical break
: > with the past is the best or fastest way to progress.
: There's a big difference between a 'radical break with the past', and
: a 'regression into the past'. I have a very difficult time understanding
: how you can put 'progress' and 'C++' in the same sentence.
: (Those who don't understand this comment should first learn about Algol-68,
: Simula, Smalltalk and Lisp, before replying.)
Or any one of the above for that matter. For those who think that C++'s
OO hack is actually good, look at Smalltalk and CLOS. You will see
just why C++'s "object orientation" is a joke, and a very unfunny one
at that.
--
Cya,
Ahmed
> Or any one of the above for that matter. For those who think that C++'s
> OO hack is actually good, look at Smalltalk and CLOS. You will see
> just why C++'s "object orientation" is a joke, and a very unfunny one
> at that.
And forget static type checking?
no way.
At least if the code is supposed to work as expected, I rather let
compiler do the checking than manually fix the bugs by testing over
and over again... Testing can only show the existance of bugs, not
that you have no bugs.
-- Tero Pulkkinen -- ·····@modeemi.cs.tut.fi --
In article <···············@zori.cs.tut.fi> ·······@zori.cs.tut.fi (Tero Pulkkinen) writes:
>> Or any one of the above for that matter. For those who think that C++'s
>> OO hack is actually good, look at Smalltalk and CLOS. You will see
>> just why C++'s "object orientation" is a joke, and a very unfunny one
>> at that.
>
>And forget static type checking?
>
>no way.
>
>At least if the code is supposed to work as expected, I rather let
>compiler do the checking than manually fix the bugs by testing over
>and over again... Testing can only show the existance of bugs, not
>that you have no bugs.
Two points -
1 - You have to test your code anyway, static or not static checking.
2 - In a decent dynamic language environment, testing is instant, and
you don't even have to stop the program running to put in the fix and
immeditately try again.
In article <············@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, ········@Bayou.UH.EDU says...
> Henry Baker (······@netcom.com) wrote:
> : In article <··········@research.att.com>, ··@research.att.com (Bjarne
> : Stroustrup) wrote:
>
> : > I do not believe that for most people and organizations a radical break
> : > with the past is the best or fastest way to progress.
>
> : There's a big difference between a 'radical break with the past', and
> : a 'regression into the past'. I have a very difficult time understanding
> : how you can put 'progress' and 'C++' in the same sentence.
>
> : (Those who don't understand this comment should first learn about Algol-68,
> : Simula, Smalltalk and Lisp, before replying.)
>
> Or any one of the above for that matter. For those who think that C++'s
> OO hack is actually good, look at Smalltalk and CLOS. You will see
> just why C++'s "object orientation" is a joke, and a very unfunny one
> at that.
>
>
> --
> Cya,
> Ahmed
>
>
If you're a good OO programmer and understand how things are done, C++
allows you to do more things because of its power of addresses. Take it
from a Smalltalker.
--
Cheers,
Andy
In article <·························@news.zebra.net> ·········@zebra.net (Andy Czerwonka) writes:
>If you're a good OO programmer and understand how things are done, C++
>allows you to do more things because of its power of addresses. Take it
>from a Smalltalker.
>
>Cheers,
>Andy
Spare me.