> > 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..)
Agree. Using a OO design can make think a lot easier. I'm mostly using
plain C because that what I'm used to.
Igmar
-
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