I don't want to start a holy war, but just to give you some idea
of where I'm coming from, I started programming in C in 1981, when
there was a total of one book in print on the subject (K&R, of course).
I love the language, and ANSI C fixed all deficiencies, in my opinion.
As for C++, in my *opinion*, it is an abomination, not a decent programming
language. There are some features in it that are nice, but absolutely
not worth the overblown sickness of it all. I think it is very appropriate
that Microsoft chose C++ for use in Windows programming. If I could
stomach C++ without dying of nausea, I'd be writing Windows apps now
and would be filthy rich from it.
And as for object orientedness, I personally find absolutely no use
for it at all. It simply is not a programming model that I find at all
intuitive or clear. And again, I don't feel the benefits are worth
the costs. I would rather do without it and keep things simple.
This, by the way, is coming from someone who has actually programmed
in Simula 67! (And yes, I thought it was a pretty silly language.)
- Jay Ts
> I just don't see the point in creating an 'abstraction' in C. Maybe
> its just me, but the whole object scheme seems the logical way to do
> things ESPECIALLY for something like this. I used to dislike C++
> about four years ago, then I spent a great deal of time reading and
> understanding OOP, and now, I find that in a world where you are
> 'trying' to get component reuse, it helps in many ways. Easier to
> read code, easier organization, and very clear distinction of outside
> and inside methods. Is it that this API is to be so simple that an
> object representation is not necessary?
>
> Rick
>
> Thursday, June 07, 2001, you wrote:
>
> >> >Can you show me:
> >> >1) a C++ header that show classes and method
> >>
> >> the most recent version of the API is in C, and is intended to remain
> >> that way.
>
> JT> Ah, thank you!
>
> JT> Just one C lover and C++ hater,
>
> JT> Jay Ts
>
>
>
