Subject: Re[4]: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA proposal, part ??
From: Rick Burnett (destinytech_AT_spacey.net)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 15:59:00 EEST
Hehe, no war intended. It's just really interesting to me. We all
could go on for DAYS talking about this and that in response to both
methods. I think the one big benefit that I like in real C++
programming is the organization. I have always found C to be poor in
organization. I have programmed in both the win32 C API and the MFC
C++ API and have written VERY large programs in both. I find as the
program gets larger, C just becomes harder to manage. It's
structuring is loose and dirty in comparison.
Now I will say that for small jobs I don't even use C or C++, I use
Perl with TK because in my mind, Perl is a great tool for programs
requiring no speed :)
I'll be honest in that it took me a hell of a long time to understand
C++ to the point I do now. I learned on C ( well Apple basic was my
first programming language ) and the concepts were hard to stomach. I
find that most people do not use C++ because they truly don't
understand how to use it. Not saying you don't, but that has been my
experience. I also find that C++ can greatly simplify complex
programming.
But anyways :) Hope they make both a C and C++ wrapper then :)
Take Care,
Rick
Friday, June 08, 2001, you wrote:
JT> I don't want to start a holy war, but just to give you some idea
JT> of where I'm coming from, I started programming in C in 1981, when
JT> there was a total of one book in print on the subject (K&R, of course).
JT> I love the language, and ANSI C fixed all deficiencies, in my opinion.
JT> As for C++, in my *opinion*, it is an abomination, not a decent programming
JT> language. There are some features in it that are nice, but absolutely
JT> not worth the overblown sickness of it all. I think it is very appropriate
JT> that Microsoft chose C++ for use in Windows programming. If I could
JT> stomach C++ without dying of nausea, I'd be writing Windows apps now
JT> and would be filthy rich from it.
JT> And as for object orientedness, I personally find absolutely no use
JT> for it at all. It simply is not a programming model that I find at all
JT> intuitive or clear. And again, I don't feel the benefits are worth
JT> the costs. I would rather do without it and keep things simple.
JT> This, by the way, is coming from someone who has actually programmed
JT> in Simula 67! (And yes, I thought it was a pretty silly language.)
JT> - Jay Ts
>> I just don't see the point in creating an 'abstraction' in C. Maybe
>> its just me, but the whole object scheme seems the logical way to do
>> things ESPECIALLY for something like this. I used to dislike C++
>> about four years ago, then I spent a great deal of time reading and
>> understanding OOP, and now, I find that in a world where you are
>> 'trying' to get component reuse, it helps in many ways. Easier to
>> read code, easier organization, and very clear distinction of outside
>> and inside methods. Is it that this API is to be so simple that an
>> object representation is not necessary?
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> Thursday, June 07, 2001, you wrote:
>>
>> >> >Can you show me:
>> >> >1) a C++ header that show classes and method
>> >>
>> >> the most recent version of the API is in C, and is intended to remain
>> >> that way.
>>
>> JT> Ah, thank you!
>>
>> JT> Just one C lover and C++ hater,
>>
>> JT> Jay Ts
>>
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 17:03:54 EEST