Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!minar From: minar@reed.bitnet (Nelson Minar,L08,x640,7776519) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: NIH class libraries for Turbo C++ Message-ID: <15696@reed.UUCP> Date: 14 Nov 90 18:39:17 GMT References: <14440@accuvax.nwu.edu> Sender: news@reed.UUCP Reply-To: minar@reed.bitnet (Nelson Minar) Distribution: comp.lang.c++ Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR Lines: 23 Brave person, getting NIHCL to do anything in TC++. I would never have attempted it, myself. some of the problems you have described (for example, the necessity of renaming .c to .cpp files) can be solved easily (in this case, a flag to the compiler). Did you try this with TC++ 1.01? Some bugs were fixed. In any case, let Borland know what you have done, in the hopes of a better compiler. On to more philisophical points. The monolithic class heirarchy is conceptually elegant. It might even be useful on a small machine, when one is working on a huge project (where huge >= compiler). However, a lot of programs just don't need that much structure. I've been using C++ for 'soft OOP' - the forest model of OOP: lots of little classes, inheritance when it is needed. I have found this to be very good for me, as it organizes my thinking much better than C does. And, when I need the power of an OOP its there for me: I CAN do inheritance. If/when templates come around to the DOS world, TC++ will become a very useful thing for some purposes. I don't think one can write off TC++ entirely. Its true that it wont be capable of doing much with NIHCL. Then again, can a DOS box effectively run programs that something as big as NIHCL is needed for?