🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Wade wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:05:02 GMT, spam@bobs.org (Bob Arnson) wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:00:22 GMT, Michael Wade wrote:
> >
> >><rant>
> >>I am annoyed by the lack of header files.  Is there some  alternative
> >>that I am not aware of?
> >
> >I'm happy to be rid of them.
> 
> Why?  In a large project with many programmers, it is simple to
> publish the class definition, allowing other programmers to use the
> class without going through the implementation source code.  I can
> certainly see that the import methodology is simple for small,
> uncomplicated classes.
> 

Use javadoc for this.



> >>"super"?  And using an initializer list is so much more elegant than
> >>"it must be the first line of code in the constructor."
> >
> >But why add a special code construct when plain ol' normal code does
> >the job?
> In the end, it's all machine code.  Initializer lists in C++ are an
> elegant simple way to enforce constant data initialization and other
> data elements.
> 
> I also abhor Java implicitly calling a constructor if you don't.
> That's a bug waiting to rear it's ugly head.
> 

C++ does this also.


> Don't get me worng, Java is a nice language, but I just don't see it
> as the C++ killer that I hear everyone crow about.  I'm not especially
> a c++'aphile, or any other language, for that matter.  I've programmed
> everything from Jovial to Forth.  They all have their pluses and
> minuses.  But some people think that Java is more of a religion than a
> language.  Reminds me of the Forth days.
> 

Amen. :-)  I never claimed Java was a C++ killer.  I simply prefer Java to C++
because I see in Java solutions to many of the (IMHO) weaknesses that I've spent
the last 6 years dealing with in C++.

++Brian

-- 
Brian Burton                        Custom Software Development
Burton Computer Corporation         Java, C++, Orbix, Tuxedo
http://www.burton-computer.com      OO Consulting and Mentoring