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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=