Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 05:27:52 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 05:53:21, David Rasmussen wrote: >On February 13, 2003 at 23:18:53, Matthew Hull wrote: > >> >> >>I think your respondent makes the crucial point. OOP is for making re-usable >>objects that can be widely used and reused by more than just one application. >>The point is to ultimately reduce programming labor costs both for development >>and mantainance. >> >>But a chess program is more like a custom built, high speed, low drag, top-fuel >>dragster, hand crafted for optimum performance. OOP is for building >>off-the-shelf components that can build more than just one thing saving time and >>money in the long run. >> > >That's just not true, neither in practice nor in theory. > >Bjarne Stroustrup (the creator of C++) has been very clear about the purpose of >C++: C++ is a _systems programming_ language that clogs some of the holes of C >(the type system etc.) and that _supports_ different design methodologies. A >goal of C++ has all the time been that you would and could basically use it for >the same things as you would use C for. He justed wanted to remove some bad >things from C and add some important features to express common design >decisions. And doing this _without making things slower than C_. This is >important. He did not set out to just make some new higher level language than >C. In practice, there have been (especially in the past) differences in the >performance of C and C++ programs, due to primarily two things: > >1. Compilers weren't mature enough >2. People used the language and it's facilities in the wrong way > >A problem that haunts both C and C++ is that far too many people use them for >problems for which they are not very well suited. In this thread, the view that >OOP is only for applications programming is expressed. I would say this: For >applications programming, C and C++ aren't very well suited. In 98% of most >applications programming, higher level languages like Python or others will do >fine. > >/David This completely misses what Matt was talking about: OOP (not C++!). Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.