Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!ames!think!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: ThinkSpeed C++--------
Message-ID: <2614@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 89 03:02:46 GMT
References: <336@castle.ed.ac.uk> <13519@well.UUCP> <6494@columbia.edu>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec Language Products Group
Lines: 61

In article <6494@columbia.edu> kearns@cs.columbia.edu writes:
>I am very disappointed with Lightspeed's Pseudo object oriented 
>extensions.  I have used C++ heavily; it is a great language which
>is certainly going to be the next standard.  LSC 4.0 is an 
>unfortunate detour along the way.  

	Factual Error #1: "pseudo" is incorrect: THINK C's object extensions
support paradigms which are fundamental to object orientation: runtime
binding, and inhertiance.

	Factual Error #2: ANSI C is the next standard, not C++.

>An indepth discussion pointing out the failings of LSC's object system
>would require much space and effort. Suffice to say that it is a kludge
>compared to the elegance and thought put into C++.  I fear that

	I see. So what you're saying is that you're content to bash something
you don't like, but you're not prepared to expend the effort to defend your
views. So: why do you think it's a kludge? Why do you think that C++ is
so elegant? In my opinion, C++ is a kitchen-sink language, some features
of which are very useful, but many others of which are just in there because
they seemed like the right thing to have. "Typesafe linkage"? So that the
wrong routine gets called just because I pass the wrong number of
parameters? "Default parameters"? Just because I'm too lazy to pass the
right number of parameters?

>Note that Lightspeed's set of predefined classes may be nicely designed
>(I have not studied them closely).  However, they would certainly be
>better in C++.  

	How do you know this, since by your own statement you haven't
even looked at them?

>The bottom line is:  no serious developer should write code that uses the
>new Think C 4.0 object oriented extensions.  The resulting code will not
>be portable across platforms, and the code will probably be rewritten for
>C++ someday anyway.  

	Oh my god! I guess I should throw away that code I'm working on,
and tell the other major developers who are using Object C to do the same.
:-)

I'm sorry, net, but I've spent weeks with my head in a tokenizer, and there's
only so much I can take. :-|

R.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Rich Siegel
 Staff Software Developer
 Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
 UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

"There is no personal problem which cannot be solved by sufficient
application of high explosives."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~