🚀 go-pugleaf

> ==========Steve Karmesin, 1/19/96==========
 
> Micha Berger wrote:
> ....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.

Actually, the templated algorithms are more at the
level of meta-object patterning.  If strict OO does
not allow you to get up out of the furrow you are
digging to see larger pictures, then strict OO has
a serious problem of too narrow a vision of the
problem space.

Being able to explicitly codify generic forms is
an essential part of good OO.  It sounds like
people want everyone to reinvent the wheel
for some misplaced notion of purity.

Good Day
Dick
Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM
---
[ 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. ]