Re: OT: C/C++ (was Re: [microsound] Max/MSP)

[Guillaume Grenier <gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/06/01 19:21, Jeremy Tolsma said in living color:

> 
> 
>> On 01/06/01 18:32, Jeremy Tolsma said in living color:
>> 
>>> C is a lot more difficult than C++
>> 
>> Huh?
> 
> Ok, if you're a C coder you may have trouble getting your brain around the
> concepts of object oriented programming.  But if you're not, then OOP is
> much easier.  OOP means you borrow libraries that are already coded, and
> form your new program as a patchwork of those libraries.  Occasionally you
> might have to write your own library, but most of the time whatever you can
> imagine doing has already been coded by someone else, so you simply include
> the library in your program and access it accordingly.  This in essence is
> the strength of OOP (well, also that you can change objects without recoding
> the whole program).  Its like using samples in your music or being a
> turntable DJ.  You're creating something new by using already formed peices.

I know about OOP programming and agree on its virtues. What I meant to
express with my comment is my stupefaction at the segment I extracted from
your post.

I can hardly see how "C is a lot more difficult than C++". Even the name
states it clearly: "C++" -- C incremented. It's C with more keywords, more
operators, more concepts, more features and more complexity. I'll admit I
don't know C++... but actually, I think that serves my point: I know C, but
not C++.

Also, the fact that C++ is OOP (some even dispute that label, calling it
object-based) does not automatically make it easier: for example,
Objective-C, another OOP superset of C (that introduces only a couple of
elements to the language) is much easier to learn and use than C++. And it
is also, in "hardcore OOP circles" regarded as a much more flexible and
powerful language, because, for one thing, of its dynamic binding and typing
features (though it also offers static typing). Among OOP's most vocal
advocators, C++ is widely regarded as a needlessly convoluted and not that
flexible language.

g.

-- 
Guillaume Grenier - gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx

in space there is no north  in space there is no south
in space there is no east   in space there is no west