Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: NIH class libraries for Turbo C++ Message-ID: <59302@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 26 Nov 90 18:48:43 GMT References: <14440@accuvax.nwu.edu> <15696@reed.UUCP> Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Distribution: comp.lang.c++ Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 18 In article <15696@reed.UUCP> minar@reed.bitnet (Nelson Minar) writes: > >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. Seems to me much of the objections to a big, monolithic library goes away if one has good support for shared libraries on your system, and if there are relatively few, big, monolithic OO libraries that the world standardizes on. Then one can have multiple applications running simultaneously sharing the same [big] library code. This also implies that someone takes the time to factor the libraries well so that less than the total library need be loaded at a given time. Until we get such emerging library standards, one can still do well using C++ and the "forest" approach to make stand-alone, well-encapsulated units of functionality.