Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!sybase!helios!txr
From: txr@helios.sybase.com (Tim Rentsch)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Seeking Object Oriented Design Training
Summary: C implies C++
Keywords: Object Oriented Design Training
Message-ID: <13576@sybase.sybase.com>
Date: 28 Jun 91 22:52:36 GMT
References: <34395@shamash.cdc.com> <13457@sybase.sybase.com> <1991Jun24.190417.10440@netcom.COM> <4203@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Sender: news@Sybase.COM
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Lines: 47

In article <4203@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David M Geary) writes:
>  Another factor is portability.  We have had to support a *Cimlinc*
>  workstation (never heard of one, right?), a Unix box that has a C
>  compiler, but does not, nor ever will, have a C++ compiler, since the 
>  machine is no longer produced, and noone's writing compilers for it.
>  (BTW g++ is not an option for us, due to internal policies in Boeing).

The AT&T C++ translator produces C as output.  Just get an AT&T C++
source license, run the translator through itself (on a sun, say),
take the output C files, ship them over to the Cimlinc, compile, and
you're in business.  (Honesty in advertising section: there are also
some hardware/os dependencies that need to be fiddled.  No big deal.
Any self-respecting C programmer would have the translator ported
in less than a week.)

Bottom line:  if you've got a C compiler on your unix box, C++ can
be available.


>  However, this does not mean that one cannot apply the principles
>  of OOP when writing C.  

One could apply the principles of zen meditation when writing C.
Would that make the program a zen program?

In practical terms it is very difficult to realize the benefits of
OOP in a language that does not support OOP directly.  C doesn't cut
it.  C++ does.  On a scale from 1 to 10 of supporting OOP, if C were
a 2, C++ would be 417.  C++ is actually more like an 8 or a 9 on the
OOP-support scale -- what does that tell you about C?


>  There are many things one can do in C to
>  achieve a high degree of modularity and reusability, however, many
>  C programmers are not well versed in this area.

Mostly agree.  The word "high" is relative.  "Higher than the average
C program" I completely agree with; "high compared to what's achievable
in C++" is, in my experience, simply wrong.

Don't get me wrong: C++ has its problems (need for better tools
certainly among them).  Problems and need for better tools
notwithstanding, C++ is still a better choice than C.

cheers,

Tim