🚀 go-pugleaf

Micha Berger wrote:
...snip...
> 
> I don't like STL because it represents an abandonment of one of C++'s
> strengths, the tools for implementing an object oriented design.
> 
> STL just isn't OO. It's the creation of algorythms that are not connected
> to the data they act upon. That doesn't make STL inherently wrong, but it
> does seem out of place in light of the number of design decisions made
> to enable OO.
...snip...

First, I will dispute the claim that something like the STL is not OO.
Second, even if it was not that doesn't make it a bad part of C++.

The fact that the algorithm of the STL aren't tied to particular data
structures does not mean that it is not OO. A better OO language than C++
would in fact allow the algorithms themselves to be objects. The fact that
they are written as templates rather than classes in C++ is because of
limitations in C++, not limitations in the idea of objects. Object != class.

I would say that the STL is a big help in OO design, even if the algorithms
aren't considered to be objects themselves.

In any case, C++ is a language for making programs. One of the tools it puts
in the hands of the programmer is objects and some facilities for doing
object oriented design. 

The goal is not and should not be to build an object oriented language. The
goal should be to build a language in which people can solve problems. An
object oriented language and object oriented design are ways to do that, but
they are not the only ways. 

If what you want is a teaching tool or research tool to explore the limits
of strict object oriented desing, such languages exist but those are not the
goals of C++.

Steve K
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]