Re: (OT) Re: memory management

[Erik <br0ke@math.smsu.edu>]

On 07-Sep-99 Bert Peers wrote:
> 
> 
> Borko Jandras wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 05:08:08PM +0200, Bert Peers wrote:
>> > I have no idea why anno 1999 people keep starting projects with intros
>> > like
>> > "so I'm starting this game/editor/compiler/... and need some SDKs *but*
>> > no C++ !!!".... :(
>> Those who speak like that are mostly those that never learned any PL except
>> C++. I had too much time on my hands so I learned C, Objective-C, C++,
>> Common
>> Lisp, Scheme and Perl.
> 

after I learned c++, I started programming and hacking on linux ('96) so I
learned C because it's what most stuff is written in. I also learned scheme and
perl, but C is my mostest favoritist :) 

> Actually I should have said : "... and need some SDKs but no OOP".  Because
> that
> is what the general sentiment actually is, the kernel and other "real world"
> stuff
> is still
> written in C so that's interpreted like "for the real work, C++ is still too
> slow/immature/obfuscated/beta/whatever".  At least that's the impression I
> get from
> watching some Linux developers.  OO is academic and C++ is slow.
>   That's what the comment was about, not C++ in particular.  I think Ada95 is
> better
> 

OOP is a design philosophy, and a damn good one. I personally think c++ is a
bad implementation of oop. I think for some things, oop is a great design
philosophy tho :) Real work is done in whatever language is best suited. Most
linux stuff is C because until recently g++ was crap. it's getting better tho,
2.7.2.3 was lacking, egcs was ok, 2.95.1 seems ok. If you look at professional
development, or windows development (two completely opposite spectrums? :) then
you see a lot of C++.

> OO than C++, and Java has some nice stuff too (eg the inner classes).
> 

java's pretty nice :)

>> My hart goes to Scheme. Objective-C is such a useful and
>> clean/small addition to C that I just can't belive nobody uses it. OTOH C++
>> is
>> such a messy bloat that I can't belive anybody would wan't to use it!

I never sat down and learned objC. I'm probly missing something really neat

> 
> This I guess is a matter of taste.  But again that's not what I meant to
> argue,
> maybe you're right in that Objective-C can offer more robustness and cleaner
> interfaces if a C++ SDK would be redesigned in O-C - but the problem is that
> the Linux community doesn't want OO at all, be it clean or bloated.
> 

I think the linux community does want OO. GTK+ is an example of OO C... 

>> All will argue that C++ offers you many useful things, like function and
>> operator overloading, multiple inheritance and templates, but 90% of those
>> will
>> later agree that operator overloading is a bad thing and should not be used,
>> multiple inheritance creates more problems than it's worth and templates
>> should
>> be avoided at all costs. What is left then?
> 
> Is that the 90% of the community that's not getting enough time off from
> their day
> jobs to keep educated on the latest software tech ? :^)  I don't know why
> templates
> are evil, and imho overloading is cool too, but talks about may be better
> taken
> offline
> (unless nobody, er, objects ofcourse)
> 

I don't mind unwinable arguments (kde/gnome, c/c++, vim/emacs) as long as they
stay civil and provide real insight to both sides :) But I'm just one grain of
sand on the beach

>> "some SDKs *but* no C++"? Well yes, if using a C++ library means giving up
>> on C,
>> Objective-C and Scheme for my project.
> 
> Hmyeah, but what's the point then of an otherwise brilliant piece of code
> like Gtk ?
> 
> Have you been checking code that's using that SDK...  Yeah it's C, but the
> "let's
> imitate
> C++" semantics is stressed up to the point that the whole thing becomes
> practically
> unreadable.  It's basically OO but with every improvement that this would
> bring and
> which would normally be implemented by the compiler, done by hand the hard
> way.

it'd be a bitch to write a beast like gtk+, but I enjoy USING it. I'm glad they
did it, I'm glad they did it the way they did, and if I had the time, I'd help
them where I could :) (I'm even on all the gtk+ and gnome mailing lists, and
write apps using gtk+ and gnome, ooOOooo)

> I don't know, don't mean to ramble here but I just can't get my head round to
> the
> way
> some developers reason.  Talking about the wrong tool for the job, imho...
>   Or maybe this is all just happening because until recently the GNU C++
> couldn't
> touch the GNU C compiler, and templates were all goofy too...
> 
> Bert
> --
> 
> -=<Short Controlled Bursts>=-
> 
> 
> 

ok, I just gotta say this to fan the flames. OOP is a design philosophy. C++ is
a language. C++ != OOP and OOP != C++. C++ can be linear, and C can be OOP.
apples and oranges. (am I wrong? I deal with some windows programmers who don't
seem to understand that oop and c++ are not synonymous, and not even the same
LEVEL. They also don't understand that compilers and ide's are different things
*shrug* :)

        -Erik <br0ke@math.smsu.edu> [http://shells.clipboard.com/~br0ke]

The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily opinions. In all
probability, they are random rambling, and to be ignored. Failure to ignore
may result in severe boredom or confusion. Shake well before opening. Keep
Refrigerated.