🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3309@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704A-Liber,N.) writes:
>In article <472@m10ux.UUCP> rgr@m10ux.UUCP (Duke Robillard) writes:
>>... To set foo, you'd call a function called set_foo.  To print the timet
>>you'd call a routine called print_time_t.  This is a major concept 
>>behind "object oriented programming" languages, life smalltalk 

>I really hated doing this back in the days when I programmed in Modula-2.  I
>ended up having a lot of functions which did nothing but set and read
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^---this is the definition of an object
>variables.  Unless you have a real smart optimizing compiler, using function
>calls instead of just referencing the variables has a large cost associated

  I agree here.  Object-orientedism is more than a language definition,
  it's a way of life.  That's why Smalltalk is a whole programming 
  environment, rather than just a compiler/interpreter.  You've got to
  get away from thinking that some variable is an "integer" so you can
  add something to it.

  I don't know a whole lot about C++, but it makes me nervious--it seems 
  like they did it half-way, which can lead to the "data-confusion" you 
  complained about originally.

>Also, in order to use time_t (besides just printing it out), I do need to 
>know what type it is.

  Again, in real OOPS, you'd have a function (method, actually) for every
  possible use of the time_t.  I agree that this is a bizarre concept in
  C (the world's highest level assembly language) but it's an integral 
  part of OOPS.

  moral:  don't write Smalltalk programs in C.


> _ __			NEVIN J. LIBER	..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1	(312) 510-6194

-- 
+                                
|               Duke Robillard, novice pagan. 
|       AT&T Bell Labs           m10ux!rgr@ihnp4.UUCP                 
|       Murray Hill, NJ          {any biggy}!ihnp4!m10ux!rgr