[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: OT: C++, yuck!
RE: OT: C++, yuck!
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:37:45 -0500
Please take this discussion off the list. This should be discussed on
comp.lang.* Though I love "C" programming yet this is our CVS discussion
group and we already get a lot of junk that we cannot control. This is a
great discussion but on wrong place.
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:58 PM
To: Thomas S. Urban
Cc: Mark A. Flacy; address@hidden
Subject: Re: OT: C++, yuck!
[ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 12:35:18 (-0800), Thomas S. Urban
> Subject: Re: OT: C++, yuck!
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 13:55:35 -0600, Mark A. Flacy sent 0.8K bytes:
> > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas S Urban <address@hidden> writes:
> > Thomas>
> > Thomas> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:59:48 -0500, Greg A. Woods sent 2.8K
> > >> "dynamic binding" isn't a feature you could ever possibly decide on
> > >> needing up front for any kind of project you'd ever even get close to
> > >> justifying C for! Get real!
> > Thomas>
> > Thomas> You're wrong. Read what I wrote again. Projects I am working on
> > Thomas> the description I gave. Then again, I'm not real, but I'm
> > Thomas> it.
> > In this case, he's correct. After all, if you need dynamic binding,
> > you can't use C and therefore can't justify using it for said project.
> He's only possible correct in the context left after my original words
> are removed. This is what I wrote:
> > > > That is silly. What if you could justify C, except you need
> > > > dynamic binding too? Then could you justify C++? What about you
> > > > need all the features of C, with generic programming as well?
> > > > Then is C++ back in
> Emphasis on the word *except*. Is your parser broken, or is my mastery
> of the english langauge failing me?
Either you're not saying what you mean or you're intentionally trying to
mislead the reader.
You cannot possibly justify C for any project that would require dynamic
binding (late binding, yes, and even "dynamic late binding", but not
pure dynamic binding), and conversely you cannot possibly need dynamic
binding for any project where C is otherwise 100% appropriate.
I.e. what I said was that you cannot even get close to the mere idea of
thinking you'll need dynamic binding if you've gotten anywhere close to
justifying C based on the merits of language alone.
C is a quite simple procedural language that's (usually) compiled and
which has a rather basic storage model and only the basic "number-like"
data types and a limited manner of defining extended, or more properly
aggregate, data types using a model where a block of storage for such an
object is treated as an aggregate of sub-fields in a fixed order, each
having either a basic type, or some other aggregate type.
You cannot have pure dynamic binding unless either: (a) the data defines
the code used to manipulate it based on what type it is, and unless the
type is not examined until runtime (i.e. you have an OO language); or
maybe (b) if the data and the code have identical representations and
you have full dynamic programming (eg. as in lisp).
BTW, I also have a fundamental problem with this idea of "requiring"
dynamic binding, and certainly not at a functional requirements level.
While I can perhaps eventually think of applications where dynamic
binding may greatly simplify the implementation, I cannot even begin to
imagine an application with a functional requirement of being
implemented with dynamic binding. That thinking just does not compute.
+1 416 218-0098; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>;
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird
Info-cvs mailing list
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- RE: OT: C++, yuck!,
Vishal Jain <=