Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!mcnc!thorin!currituck!morse
From: morse@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Bryan Morse)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Yet more THINK C suggestions
Message-ID: <16707@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 90 20:18:13 GMT
References: <21107@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: morse@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Bryan Morse)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 37

In article <21107@well.sf.ca.us> gurgle@well.sf.ca.us (Pete Gontier) writes:

>o Project nesting. We wish we could have multiple projects open. Double-
>  clicking on a project item in a project window should open that project. I
>  guess there'd have to be a "master" project - the root of the project tree.
>  How that would be accomplished I don't know. Some of it would clear up if the
>  previous suggestion were implemented.

Amen!  I like to organize common routines into separate projects and use them
in larger projects.  If it becomes necessary to modify or add to the sub-
project, it is a real pain in 4.0.

>o We are explicitly uninterested in C++. We are perfectly able to create
>  re-usable code with things the way they are, and we would prefer that time be
>  spent on other things (like the linker). Do not mistake us for Luddites;
>  we like the OOP stuff in THINK C right now. It's just that we think the next
>  important generation in software engineering will not be C++.

This is what really prompted me to respond.  There is more to C++ than just
OOP!  I personally would like to see the "better C" parts of C++ implemented
in Think C as well as imitating the OOP portion of C++.  This isn't flaming
the above comment, just asking (begging?) Symantec to add some of the non-OOP
parts of C++:
  - default parameters
  - for (int i = 0; ... )
  - overloading: (very do-able)
       int a;
       float b;
       print(a);
       print(b);

Of course, C++ would be nice.  But until then, if we are going to take some of
C++ and graft it onto C, why not include the non-OOP parts as well?


Bryan Morse
morse@cs.unc.edu