On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:13:44PM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > OO design had nothing to do with OO implementation. I can design a system
> > > totally in OO, and implement it in C. Really stupid thing to do I think,
> > > but it's possible..
> >
> > Try it someday. That's how VFS/VM/filesystems are done.
>
> Tell my teacher it's a good idea, he is telling otherwise :)
Teaching people to UNDERSTAND and THINK in OO methods can help
in several problems. There is no absolute requirement that
final implementations are done in any sort of OO languages.
.. any language with structures, data- and function pointers
is trivially yieldable to do OO things.
All it takes is to have some discipline, and a way of thinking
to make object oriented C. (Without templates, and exceptions
perhaps, but object anyway.)
Most people seem to think that having syntactic sugar coating
everything is a must for an OO language. I don't feel so, but
I begun with USCD p-system Pascal, continued with CLU(ster),
and finally learned C.
Of those, CLU is full of sugar, all ideas that are presented
as "new" in C++ I have exploited in CLU back in late 1980es.
(And I mean *all*, exceptions and templates included!)
(But back then I used 36 bit mainframes by Digital..)
> Igmar
/Matti Aarnio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:22 EST