🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <l9pvs3INN23a@west.west.sun.com> comp.lang.objective-c writes:
>It seems that I'm the only person who I've heard say that the best features
>of C++ have nothing to do with object orientation.
>
>The power of operator overloading provides the programmer with the ability to
>define a data structure and the operations on it.  Since the natural
>progression of reusable software is from in-line-code -> function ->
>library-member -> language feature, this functionality is key in providing a
>powerful, high level language.
>

You don't seem to have a good grasp on the terminology...

First of all: what you are describing above is _not_ operator
overloading. Operator overloading is simply the ability to define
the meaning of the languages operators. 

The ability to define a data structure and the operations on it is
one of the basic features of object orientation. Add in inheritance,
and that IS object-orientation as implemented in C++.

>The ability to define template classes takes the notion of code reusability
>another step.  The container class and the operations on it are defined once
>and the programmer instantiates this template class as needed for each type,
>removing the need for repeated code modification.
>

The ability to define templates (not just template classes, but
templates as a whole) is a feature added to C++ to overcome a weakness
in its type system. In other languages, other methods of reusing code
have been implemented. In Objective-C, there is no need for templates
because of weak types/fully dynamic binding. In Standard-ML, there is
no need for templates because the type system is sufficiently powerful
to cope with polymorphic functions without the help provided by templates.
Frankly, I consider templates to be one of the greatest weaknesses of C++ -
they're only needed because C++ chose to use a strong by unintelligent type
system. With a weaker type system, or a strong intelligent type system, the
template kludge is unncessary.

>The exception capability is nice, but overly complex and will meet with
>widespread lack of use, much like the MI features.

Exception handling is _absolutely_ _crucial_. In _every_ major
production program, exception handling is absolutely pervasive. In the
past, it's always been done fairly kludgily, with gotos, setjmps, and
other bizzare messes. The C++ system is certainly excessively complex
and confusing, but it's THERE. It exists, it works, and it's a whole
lot better then setjmp/longjmp. I tend to think that the presence of a
functional standard exception handling mechanism is one of the best
additions to C++ since the language was initially released. (I wish it
were a better system, but I'm glad to have it. I wish Objective-C
provided as much!)

	<MC>


-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"Don't ever think that you can't
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||    change the past
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||       or the future"
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  - _Love_and_Anger_, Kate Bush