Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!kth.se!cyklop.nada.kth.se!news From: nv89-nun@dront.nada.kth.se (Nicklas Ungman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: OOP (was Re: Assembly Language & Programming) Message-ID: Date: 21 Apr 91 18:12:06 GMT References: <37046@ditka.Chicago.COM> Sender: news@nada.kth.se (Mr News) Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Lines: 51 In-reply-to: comeau@ditka.Chicago.COM's message of 18 Apr 91 15:25:05 GMT In article <37046@ditka.Chicago.COM> comeau@ditka.Chicago.COM (Greg Comeau) writes: In article nv89-nun@dront.nada.kth.se (Nicklas Ungman) writes: >In object oriented programming you modulate objects which consist of both >data and code tied together as an entity. You form these objects very much >like reality. This lets the game designer focus on game design, not on >programming. After all, many components in a computer game are often objects >or entities. I wouldn't go so far as to say that one doesn't have to not be concerned with the programming. One *does* have to beinvolved with that aspect. However, what it offers is that the focus in the right places can be more intense and proper. What I mean is that with OOP the game design is implemented (almost) in the way it is designed, and the game designer doesn't have to be a hacker (although there's nothing wrong about that). It's like the director who must concentrate on directing, not on acting or film-shooting, although a good director must know about these things. >I also hope for better compilers in the future (many C++ compilers are >actually pre-compilers) You imply translating compilers (not pre-compilers) != better compiler. The truth of the matter is that something like AT&T cfront, which Comeau C++, is based on, is the most robust C++ compiler technology around. And it's up-to-date too. I don't want to sound rude, but I don't see the merit in that analogy. If you meant that you want to see a nice C++ environment, then, yes, I drool for it myself, but I think that a different issue than what you mentioned. I imply better compilers in general, not just C++ but eg. Eiffel compilers. I didn't mean pre-compilers are bad, but I think with real compilers, its easier to do things like optimization and debugger support. And compile time is also usually twice with a translating compiler (A friend of mine took an Eiffel course, and the Eiffel->C translator was up to eight (8) pass). I also want better enviroments. I currently use THINK Pascal and think it's superior to most systems around (all I've seen). It has a built in symbolic debugger, intelligent Make (which the user dont even notice), and an interactive editor, all integrated in one application. - Greg -- Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418 Producers of Comeau C++ Here:attmail.com!csanta!comeau / BIX:comeau / CIS:72331,3421 Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310 /Nixxon