🚀 go-pugleaf

Jason:

Okay, I'll bite.  Which OS's are being developed in OOP?  Not Win9x or
NT and not any variant of *nix that traces back to AT&T.  Now, there
are items that go on top of the OS kernel that could be seen as "part
of" the OS.

OS/2 came close, but not in the deeper rings where the "rubber meets
the road", as it were.

Come to think of it, I can't see what an OS gains from OOP.  Usually
you want to tune the OS to the architecture.

I'd also chime in on this that wrapping .c files in .cpp files and
calling it OOP isn't gonna fool anyone but managers <g>.  Wrappers are
great for interfacing to legacy code (as long as you trust the legacy
code).

-Rich

Jason C. Leach wrote:
> 
> Well, how about.
> 
> 1. OSes are being developed in OOP so why not the apps that run on them.
> 
> 2. Reusabel code. {they shoud love this one} if you can reuse code it
> should cut down on the time/cost of development.
> 
> 3. C++, and Java are industry standards for OOP.
> 
> 4. It is hard to get support for non-OOP due to #1.
> 
> J

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rich Wilkman
Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
Borland JBuilder Team

If you see something that looks like an opinion up there,
it's mine and mine alone.

Mail sent to me from the newsgroups won't bounce but will
be ignored.  If I have time, I'll respond, but you  have
a better chance if you confine your posts to the newsgroups
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=