Chris ( Val ) said:
> On Mar 13, 1:28 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Chris ( Val ) said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Do you think writing a library in 'C' is easier than using C++?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. Much, much, much, much easier, with la****ngs of
>> cleaner, lightly saute'd pleasanter, and a tasteful side salad of
>> simpler.
>
> I disagree,
Fair enough - that's your right...
> and you don't really believe it yourself :)
....but you don't get to decide what I believe.
> Earlier you were talking up how your function was convenient
> because it saved one line of typing,
Well, I mentioned it. I don't think I was "talking it up", as in hyping
it.
It's hardly a big deal, after all. I was astounded to find you talking it
down, however.
> and here you advocate creating a library.
That's rather a non sequitur, isn't it? Anyway, what's wrong with
advocating the creation of libraries? Do you advocate *not* creating
libraries? Would you rather rewrite the same code over and over again?
> Also, please do not snip out too much context,
I didn't.
> because the OP clearly states...
I wasn't addressing what the OP stated. I was addressing *your* question,
not his.
>
> <QUOTE>
>> Now that I'm more aware of the project and what is going on, and
>> considering that those of us involved haven't used C++ or C before,
I've
>> found that what we want to do could have been done in a much simpler
way
>> and could
>> have been done in C instead. Basically it could have been put into a
>> library without any need to use OOP.
> </QUOTE>
>
> ...that they haven't even used C (OR) C++ before, and it is in that
> context to which I addressed my question.
But since you mention the OP's lack of experience, yes, I'd still say that
if they want to get the job done quickly, C is the way to go. Of course,
if they have the necessary time available to learn the whole OOP religion,
that's up to them.
>> > Btw, C++ is a multi paradigm language and not OOP specific.
>>
>> And yet, when people post code that is not in line with your perception
>> of OOP best practice, you criticise it on that basis. Seriously, Chris,
>> you might want to think about this inconsistency.
>
> Richard, you are completely wrong, and there *is no inconsistency*
> with my answers.
So you claim that C++ is not OOP specific, *and* you criticise C++ code
posted here that does not accord with your OOP dogma, despite the fact
that no claim about OOPness was made for that code. If C++ is not OOP
specific, it ought to be possible to post C++ code here that is not OOP
specific. Complaining about it because it doesn't follow your OOP rules
suggests to me that you think C++ *should* be OOP specific. I don't see
how you reconcile these two diametrically opposed positions.
> You have a serious problem if no one can ever
> question the code you write - You aren't always right you know!
True enough. Of course people can question the code I write. That doesn't
mean I have to accept their criticisms. If I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong, but
just *saying* I'm wrong doesn't make it so.
> ****like you and everybody else passionate about programming****
>
> I put into my answer some of what I *know* to be right, some of what
> I believe is right (from what I learnt during my time in UNI), as well
> as the experience I have gained on the job thus far.
>
> You are not any different in this regard.
Agreed. But what I try to put into my answers is an eye for correctness
*and* a willingness to allow the questioner the freedom to adopt his own
solutions, paradigms, ways of doing things, provided they don't break the
rules of the language or introduce weaknesses that can be exploited by an
attacker (which is why I oppose, say, the use of gets() even though it's a
perfectly standard function).
<snip>
>> It's not our job to pick people's paradiggums or languages for them.
>
> Wrong!
Here I must strongly disagree. You don't get to decide other people's
approach to programming, any more than I do.
> What you fail to understand (or accept) about C++, is that it is a
> powerful language,
So far, I understand and accept that C++ is powerful.
> and it *promotes* the use of OOD and OOP,
That's more questionable. Cf Alan Kay.
> so when someone posts a question about C++, chances are
> that they are using a class
Using a class doesn't mean you're using OOP.
> and writing an OOP,
By no means necessarily true.
> and chances are that more often than not, then answers
> provided will involve the discussion of OOD.
Fine by me, but saying that a non-OOD/OOP-oriented(!) reply is *wrong*
simply because it breaches some apparently arbitrary OOD/OOP rule is just
completely wrong-headed. It's like criticising a glider for not having an
engine.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www.
+rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
