OOP

[Malcolm McLean]

Re: OOP


"Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfou r@ppllaanneett. nnlllwrote in message

Why not just use the features you want and ignore the
ones you dont like??
The language will work just as well.
>

There are some snags. For instance if we write a "constructo r" in C the
natural thing to do is to return a null pointer if the function fails. There
is no way to do this in C++. So the solution is to throw an exception. Which
means that if you use constructors that either validate parameters or
acquire resoruces, exceptions are mandatory.


--
Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Sean G. McLaughlin]

Re: OOP

campyhapper@yah oo.com wrote:

And if I'm going to turn back the clock, I
might as well go with Objective C.

That is a fairly ignorant statement about Objective-C. There is
nothing "out-of-date" about it, or perhaps you've never heard of Mac OS X
(they just came out with a new point release)?

And despite your dismissal of it, ObjC fulfills your description of the
language you want precisely:

and disallows things like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

Check. No templates and MI is explicitly disallowed.

[campyhapper@yahoo.com]

Re: OOP

On Jun 30, 10:14 pm, "Sean G. McLaughlin" <non...@domain. invalid>
wrote:

And despite your dismissal of it, ObjC fulfills your description of the
language you want precisely:
>

and disallows things like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

>
Check.  No templates and MI is explicitly disallowed.

I was being sarcastic. I didn't mean to disrespect your beloved
language and hurt your tender feelings. I am quite ashamed of my
heartless conduct in ever so slightly diminishing ObjC's shimmering
and glistening vitality, which is like a newly formed fine ocean
spray, even while Apple's ObjC libraries are largely the intellectual
property of Apple(TM) Computer, (R) Inc., destroyer of ThinkSecret and
eviscerater of select iPhone-clone retailers, and are therefore off-
limits like a dank moss-covered basement reeking of urine.

[rahul]

Re: OOP

On Jun 30, 9:27 pm, campyhap...@yah oo.com wrote:

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?
>
Thanks.

Why do you want a new lang. if what you want is really a subset of C+
+? May be implementing object oriented concepts in C itself will solve
your purpose. (As pete demonstrated)

[campyhapper@yahoo.com]

Re: OOP

On Jul 2, 4:37 am, rahul <rahulsin...@gm ail.comwrote:

>
Why do you want a new lang. if what you want is really a subset of C+
+? May be implementing object oriented concepts in C itself will solve
your purpose. (As pete demonstrated)

That's what I usually do, and I've had success with that,
although it's like reinventing the wheel for every project.
There may come a day when I will just release my
"classes" for general consumption and see if they
gain any traction.

Or, I will just switch to Objective C.