From: yseeley@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yonik Christopher Seeley) Subject: Re: ALPHA-pl11 available on nic: C++ support Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 07:47:30 GMT
In article <badger.742192099@phylo> badger@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
>yseeley@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yonik Christopher Seeley) writes:
>
>>In article <C9ux90.KpF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.ACS.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>
>>>I started looking at it once but it just seems far to cludgy.
>
>>Agreed, but who are you disagreeing with? Most C++ books acknowledge
>>this fact. C++ is a hybrid language and doesn't try to be a full
>>blown object oriented language. Use something like small-talk if
>>you want something closer to a pure object oriented language.
>
Whoa, that's a little out of context. I was agreeing that you don't need
C++ to do object oriented programming, not that C++ was cludgy.
>Or Objective-C? I really don't see why so many people are ignoring this
>language, but it allows smalltalk-style (ie. real) object-oriented programming
>which C++ simply can't offer. Has anyone played with the GNU version? Doesn't
>stepstone still own the objective-c lib? Or is there a GNU objective-c lib
>as well?
>
Ob-C has it's disads also (so I have been told), but I don't know much
about it. Seems like NeXT people are the only ones interested. I don't
think the performance is quite as good though. Aren't all class members
forced to be virtual?
Anyway, I don't think that Linus wanted to go totally object oriented
with the kernel - not even close. Smalltalk-style, while very nice,
is not what you always want. Again, just because one uses C++ does
not mean that they want to use an object oriented paradigm down
to the T.
- Yonik Seeley
yseeley@cs.stanford.edu