From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Franz Subject: Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git* Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:46 -0400 Message-ID: <46F6A73A.3010203@comcast.net> References: <46F5318A.4030103@krose.org> <877imishdp.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <46F55E03.2040404@krose.org> <5e4707340709221550o6d0a6062qd51c16a278727c29@mail.gmail.com> <20070923020951.GF24423@planck.djpig.de> <20070923062527.GA8979@old.davidb.org> <851wcpsv4z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <20070923104525.GC7118@artemis.corp> <85zlzdo3ch.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Git X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 23 19:50:03 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IZVak-0007TX-8i for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:50:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754832AbXIWRtz (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754670AbXIWRtz (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:55 -0400 Received: from alnrmhc14.comcast.net ([204.127.225.94]:59005 "EHLO alnrmhc14.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754619AbXIWRty (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:54 -0400 Received: from paul-franzs-computer.local (c-69-136-89-103.hsd1.pa.comcast.net[69.136.89.103]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20070923174953b1400opbbve>; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:49:54 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) In-Reply-To: <85zlzdo3ch.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: To me the methods that an OO class defines is the same thing as an API. And you can screw up an API whether it is C++ or C. Both give you the same opportunity to screw up the model and create code that needs to be re-written. Paul Franz David Kastrup wrote: > "Marco Costalba" writes: > > >> On 9/23/07, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >> >>>> Object oriented languages creates black boxes: that's the reason >>>> why object oriented exsists and also the reason why Linus hates >>>> it ;-) >>>> > > >>> So please stop with this myth. And don't speak for people, I would >>> be very surprised that Linus would dislike "black >>> boxes". Abstractions are good, when used wisely, and I would be >>> much surprised to see Linus pretend otherwise. >>> >> From a Linus recent thread: >> >> >>> In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level >>> and portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that >>> are basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means >>> that people don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot >>> of programmers that do actually understand low-level issues and >>> don't screw things up with any idiotic "object model" crap. >>> >> Perhaps I have misunderstood, but the idea I got is that for Linus >> OO brings in more problems than what it tries to fix. >> > > I read that as OO bringing in more programmers capable of creating > problems than those capable of fixing them. > > It is not the fault of OO in itself, but it is the bottom line that > counts: if it draws the wrong audience for the wrong reasons, it > better had great benefits to offset that. Not quite unsimilar with > communism: the idea is great in principle, but the idea has no > built-in self-check. Capitalism, in contrast, is a distasteful idea > at its heart, but it is rooted soundly in individual egoism. Which > does not make it any less distasteful, but at least it tends to work. > > -- ------------------------------------------- There are seven sins in the world. Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Worship without sacrifice. Politics without principle. -- Mohandas Gandhi -------------------------------------------