Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!bbn!ginosko!husc6!bunny!sg04
From: sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: C++ vs. "Objective C"
Message-ID: <7413@bunny.GTE.COM>
Date: 11 Aug 89 14:03:20 GMT
References:  <2393@zygot.UUCP> <5547@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA
Lines: 22

In article <5547@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) writes:
> I don't use C++ anymore.  I just do Object-Oriented designs and programs,
> but I use C as the implementation language.  These object veneers are 
> simply not necessary.


This is an interesting comment. I think for some applications this might be
fairly true. However, I tend to feel that if a person really is doing very
exploratory work, he might miss the polymorphism of TRUE OO languages. Also,
languages such as Smalltalk have a great library of things in the collection
classes (dictionaries, sets, ordered collections) that might be tedious to
reimplement. Can anyone list other things that might be lost in returning
to straight C implementations?




-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  sgutfreund@gte.com
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=