Comments on: Sam on C++ http://winterdom.com/2002/11/samonc by dæmons be driven Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:02:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tomas Restrepo http://winterdom.com/2002/11/samonc/comment-page-1#comment-693 Tomas Restrepo Mon, 11 Nov 2002 06:55:52 +0000 http://winterdom.com/2002/11/samonc#comment-693 <p>I don't think you failed, Sam. Actually, you brought out very good points overall. And I very much agree with your opinion that confining ourselves to OOD is way too limited.</p> I don’t think you failed, Sam. Actually, you brought out very good points overall. And I very much agree with your opinion that confining ourselves to OOD is way too limited.

]]> By: Sam Gentile http://winterdom.com/2002/11/samonc/comment-page-1#comment-692 Sam Gentile Mon, 11 Nov 2002 06:43:56 +0000 http://winterdom.com/2002/11/samonc#comment-692 <p>Thanks for your thoughtful and kind response. When you diagree about C++ designed for multi-paradigm design, I think my choice of words was incorrect. C++ was designed by Stroustrup to support multiple "styles" or "paradigms" od Programming. It was *never* designed by *choice* to be a pure OO language which we agree on but it was designed to support multiple types of programming. From Stroustrup, 3rd edition, page 22 "C++ is a general purpose progarmming language with a bias toward systems programming that supports object oriented programming and supports generic prpgramming." Page 23, "C++ was designed to support data abstraction, object-oriented programming in addition to traditional C programming under these constraints." My point is that it was designed by intention to support other paradigms than OO. </p> <p>Also, if the essay comes off as a defense of C++ or a call to use it, I've failed. The point I was trying to make is that multi-pardigm design is useful and confining oneself to the subset that is OOD is limiting one's flexibility and choices. I used C++ as an example but I could have used ADA or other languages.</p> <p>Thoughts?</p> <p>Thanks BTW. At least you read it-)</p> Thanks for your thoughtful and kind response. When you diagree about C++ designed for multi-paradigm design, I think my choice of words was incorrect. C++ was designed by Stroustrup to support multiple “styles” or “paradigms” od Programming. It was *never* designed by *choice* to be a pure OO language which we agree on but it was designed to support multiple types of programming. From Stroustrup, 3rd edition, page 22 “C++ is a general purpose progarmming language with a bias toward systems programming that supports object oriented programming and supports generic prpgramming.” Page 23, “C++ was designed to support data abstraction, object-oriented programming in addition to traditional C programming under these constraints.” My point is that it was designed by intention to support other paradigms than OO.

Also, if the essay comes off as a defense of C++ or a call to use it, I’ve failed. The point I was trying to make is that multi-pardigm design is useful and confining oneself to the subset that is OOD is limiting one’s flexibility and choices. I used C++ as an example but I could have used ADA or other languages.

Thoughts?

Thanks BTW. At least you read it-)

]]>