Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!scea!greg_labrec@interactive.sony.com From: "Michael C. Lee, Jr." Newsgroups: scea.yaroze.freetalk Subject: Re: object-oriented support? Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:29:08 -0700 Organization: SCEA Net Yaroze News Lines: 88 Message-ID: <33DDC5F4.5DDC@hubcap.clemson.edu> References: <33b69d9c.138132316@news.scea.sony.com> <5p81kr$fv57@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <33D702CE.22A9@hubcap.clemson.edu> <5r7c25$5na47@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <33D77A4E.3BDB@hubcap.clemson.edu> <01bc9889$8d86e260$a0bf43ce@wkwerner> <33D8269C.3466@hubcap.clemson.edu> <5ra49g$pm11@chuka.playstation.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-25.innova.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) Gil Jaysmith wrote: > > >Wow, got some serious followers here. > > Were I not the possessor of a joyous and loving heart, I'd probably > resent that remark ;=) > > >C++ compiler technology must have come a long way since 2.5 years ago > >cuz, I knew how to code in it and it was dragging. > >gcc and Visual C++ (borland and MS). > > Yes, it has. Microsoft, amongst other companies, decided not to waste > time and they've evidently made a commitment to support C++ over C. > Meanwhile, the GNU C++ compiler is still badly in need of some > rewriting (it lacks debug support for static class members, amongst > other things). I agree that things have changed quite quickly; when I > meddled with Borland C++ a few years ago it didn't implement the > delete operator properly, amongst other things. It's taken until now > for it to become a viable gameswriting choice. If you were basing your > commentary on outdated knowledge, then you're forgiven... > > >If you want to do oop, use smalltalk. Im talking to a company now that > >is looking for a programmer and theyre interested in my smalltalk > >experience. It is a true oop language. I've noticed that a good deal > >of people who code in C++ end up reverting back to C and don't use many > >of the powerful features of C++ (exception handling, templates, etc). > > Their loss. But programmers who structure their work with any sense > and who aim to write good clear code can generally do so in any > language. > > >I'm not a steadfast C programmer. As a matter of fact, I think most C > >programmers are nerdy closet types who have trouble designing good user > >friendly code because they don't understand that the end product is for > >the more computer illiterate public. Just look at the documentation for > >the Yaroze, pretty lacking. I know 13 languages. C is not my favorite, > >but it is my best, cuz I use it, cuz thats pretty much what everyone > >uses. If I had it my way, everything would be Ada. Now there's a well > >designed language. I am a fan of functional languages, like C and Ada. > > (13, is that all? ;=) > > Terminology tip: C and Ada are procedural, not functional, languages > (unless you mean 'they work') - the technical meaning of 'functional' > encompasses wondrous things like ML. > > The documentation for the Yaroze is poor because it's been sadly > translated and because DTS stuff is invariably poor; documentation > only becomes an important issue to most companies when it's part of a > shrinkwrapped product, otherwise, it's left to the support desk. The > reason that the libraries are for C is probably that they didn't want > to write their own compiler, just to ship a free one like GNU, and C > was the obvious choice from the languages supported by GNU. > > > Interesting that you like Ada and feel that it's well-designed. My > understanding of Ada is that it contains all the popular features from > five or six contemporaneously popular languages, and that you can > comfortably write Ada which looks like C, Ada which looks like Pascal, > etc, and the work of programmers with different interests can look > even more radically different than usual. In other words, perhaps you > like Ada because you program it like you program C :=) > > For my part I'm a fan of the right language for the job. And there are > a lot of right languages for each job. > > > >This thing can't get more confusing than a woman. > > ? > Fortunately I feel like ignoring that, too :) > > Gil Jaysmith > SN Systems Software Ltd, makers of Psy-Q... http://www.snsys.com > Disclaimer: What I say when I post here represents me, not my employers. Oh ya, procedural, ML is functional. Anyway... No, I don't write Ada like C. I love Ada. C is awful, but it works. Ada isn't a bunch of languages thrown together but a language that was developed for a need (DOD). It so happens that is is like many other languages cuz what they needed was features that many languages support. The problem is, they wanted easily ported and readable code so they wouldn't have to shell out the big dough for new dudes to come and update/rewrite stuff, hence Ada...BUT they keep changing the language, defeating its main purpose. So this is its big drawback. Anyway, can we get back to yaroze talk? This stuff is still confusing. mike