[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (OT) Re: memory management
> 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,
> 18.104.22.168 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++.
Yep, and I agree that this is unfortunate. Don't get me wrong here people, I'm not
the next in line C++ freak who wants to conquer the world with The Language.
I just wondered why (1) so many linux people are so strongly against C++/OO,
(2) those that are not against, like Gtk, proceed to write OO-in-C... So we're
getting to some answers here :)
> I think the linux community does want OO. GTK+ is an example of OO C...
Maybe... I still have the impression that because of the bazaar model, the
let's-quickly-hack-it programming style prevails. The really big projects go
OO because they more or less have to at that size, but most other things
look like skip design and Chase The Feature :P
> > (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
Hehe.. the argument may be eternal, but at least those two Qs above are
answerable... I hope :)
> 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)
Again please don't get me wrong, Gtk rulez. I just didn't get why an OO
design isn't implemented with an OO language. The reasons are summing up
> 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?
No, I completely agree. And sometimes there are really good reasons to take an
OO design and implement it with a functional language (C) : memory footprint,
realtime scheduling pressures, etc. But I don't see any of them in Linux -- apart
from the bad tool support reasons you mentioned, and Steve's argument on API
interfaces, currently under debate :^) So by lack of such reasons I thought "the
Linux people are just so hardcore C that they want to stick with it even if their
designs are very clean OO", example, Gtk.
-=<Short Controlled Bursts>=-