Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
A GNOME 3.0 planA GNOME 3.0 planPosted Apr 3, 2009 4:36 UTC (Fri) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587)In reply to: A GNOME 3.0 plan by drag Parent article: A GNOME 3.0 plan There is nothing at all that you can do in C++ that you cannot do just as effectively in C. Saying otherwise is just rubbish. Any good programmer is perfectly and 100% capable of writing programs in a pure object oriented manner using C language. Using the same logic one could argue that "there is nothing at all you can do in C that you can't do in assembler", including having an object oriented approach. There is a multitude of reasons why C++ exists, one of them being that much of the drudgery of handling objects is taken care of by the compiler.
(Log in to post comments)
There is ONE exception Posted Apr 3, 2009 6:01 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Using the same logic one could argue that "there is nothing at all you can do in C that you can't do in assembler", including having an object oriented approach. Unfortunatelly it's not true at all. Yes, you can implement OOP in assembler (heck, TASM 3.0 included a lot of OOP-oriented constructs), but in the end the acholess heel of assembler is the fact that you can not write portable program in assembler. You even may need to call functions differently under different OS with the same CPU! Thus C makes sense as "high-level-portable-assembler". There is a multitude of reasons why C++ exists, one of them being that much of the drudgery of handling objects is taken care of by the compiler. Unfortunatelly it only means you must fight the compiler tooth and nail to make it produce somewhat sane code. Take a look on this and compare it with the same things in sane languages (Java or even GObject - even if it's not language it's must easier to make it do what you want and not what it wants).
There is ONE exception Posted Apr 3, 2009 6:16 UTC (Fri) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] Unfortunatelly it only means you must fight the compiler tooth and nail to make it produce somewhat sane code. Take a look on this and compare it with the same things in sane languages (Java or even GObject - even if it's not language it's must easier to make it do what you want and not what it wants).I'm not sure about "fighting the compiler tooth and nail". If one does that, it generally means one is fighting against the language rather than using it properly. Any language can be abused, and C++ is no exception. Furthermore, the link provided above leads to much Qt-specific code, which shouldn't be equated with all of C++ code. Qt has far more specific idiosyncrasies than gtkmm, for example.
There is ONE exception Posted Apr 3, 2009 13:06 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Actually, most of the stuff in that link is about not violating the
compiler's invariants regarding class definitions that change. As this is technically a violation of the One Definition Rule in the C++ Standard, it's unsurprising that it's a bit of a nest of snakes... but you come across *exactly the same problem in C* if you have a system that makes heavy use of structures and you want to change some of them without recompiling all their users. The rules just *look* odder because the structures are automatically built for you by the compiler: if you had to build them by hand, *all the same issues would arise anyway*.
There is ONE exception Posted Apr 3, 2009 15:07 UTC (Fri) by cybernytrix (guest, #5727) [Link]
If you see how QT throws away almost everything C++ provides and it reinvents all these:
1. Why do you need MOC? Debugging is a royal pain! 2. Why doesnt it use C++ strings? 3. Why do you need to implement introspection? Isnt C++ "high level" to provide this. 4. STL??? So on... GTK and GObject arguably does the same. What is the point of using C++ when your toolkit simply does not use many language features and invents a whole lot of crap? Qt is a fine library and now it is even licensed as LGPL. The only feature of C++ they seem to be actively using is automatic calling of destructors and exceptions. Why bother with C++ for just these?
There is ONE exception Posted Apr 3, 2009 15:24 UTC (Fri) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
1) No, actually not. Debugging is painless -- at least, that's my experience over the past ten years.
2) Because they aren't half as poweful as QStrings. 3) No, C++ isn't highlevel enough. 4) All Qt container classes are compatible with the STL.
And about the features of C++ Qt uses... Well, that was just silly hyperbole, right, not an honest
|
|||||||||||||