From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Mar 6 11:21:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A952037B405 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool0154.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.154] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16igvf-0002Jy-00; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:18:23 -0800 Message-ID: <3C866B6F.B5EE54E2@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:18:07 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nate Williams Cc: Brett Glass , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: C vs C++ References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020306075350.00ddfb00@localhost> <3C857080.44C5236B@mindspring.com> <20020305193028.H6706-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20020306114140.02d4baa0@localhost> <15494.26382.819650.400667@caddis.yogotech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Nate Williams wrote: > > >So, why don't you like Java if you like safer languages? > > > > Because of the "oh, no!" factor. > > > > You see, whenever Java starts up in a user's browser, the result > > is invariably a long delay (during which the browser freezes). > > The use of Java doesn't necessarily imply the user of a browser. As a > matter of fact, I don't consider Java on the browser to be a > viable/useful use of Java, except for 'Toy' applets (bouncing dots, > waving flags, etc..) Heh. I hacked my Netscape to say "Slowing down...." instead of "Starting Java...". > > What's more, I'm not an OOP fanatic. Anything that's inescapably > > object oriented requires a long learning curve and can be quite > > inefficient. > > I *used* to think that way until I actually took the time to implement > something that forced (!) me to design something in an OOP way., without > the language getting in the way. > > Being C-like I didn't have to re-learn alot of what I already know, so I > could spend more time on the design instead of trying to figure out the > language so much. Also, I was lucky in that the project had no hard and > fast deadlines, so we were free to re-implement some of the basic > infrastructure two or three times before we brought it to market. > > We were able to correct a number of mistakes we made in the first > iteration, and then go back and correct our 'fixes' in the third > iteration. :) Yes. Object decomposition has a lot of value, even when compared to functional decomposition, for avoiding a lot of problems. Like anything, it's a tool, and the more tools you have, beyond just a pair of vice grips and a flat blade screwdriver, the better mechanic you can be (on the flip side, buying a bunch of tools doesn't make you a mechanic 8-)). When I was doing technical review on Vahalia's book back in 1995, I explicitly recommended against using O-O based examples and terminology; at the time, it wasn't well taught in colleges (it was just starting to come into wider vogue), and using the terminology would have limited the accessability of the information. Given the knee-jerk reactions on this thread to O-O C++ and even Java programming, I'm still glad I pressed the issue, though at the time, it was a tough call. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message