Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!sjb
From: sjb@cs.toronto.edu (Stephen Bellantoni)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Do class libraries have to be in source form (2 of 4)
Message-ID: <1989Nov23.105650.17030@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 89 15:56:50 GMT
References: <177@taumet.UUCP> <1989Nov22.181203.16204@mentor.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 21

In article <1989Nov22.181203.16204@mentor.com> lisch@mentor.com (Ray Lischner) writes:
>
> Without access to the sources, a class library can quickly become useless.
> 

If this is true then it may be the death knell for object oriented
programming. For, the only reasons to have the source are (1) to look at
it and (2) to change it. 

In case (2) you are not re-using code, you are modifying it. If this is 
neccessary for making the best use of object oriented code, then OO has
failed in its goal of making code re-usable: it merely makes it easier
to re-use by encouraging a more structured (i.e. easier to modify) style.

Case (1) you should be able to handle using proper (and I mean really 
complete) documentation. Thus an argument that case (1) is the reason for
having source code is an argument that, ultimately, source code is the only
complete form of documentation. Equivalently, it is an argument that, 
practically speaking, functionality cannot be separated from implementation.

:stephen bellantoni