Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Permalink for comment 65318
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I have looked at it, and I agree with you, the ideas behind it are object oriented, but it is object oriented by ideom not by language. This gives people not realizing this, too many possibilities to screw it up.
Why not use a language that support these ideas, instead of having people do it manually. The fact that we can write structured programs in assembler doesn't make assembler a good choise for everyday programming tasks, just like using C for object oriented stuff is generally a bad idea. For one thing, it increases the learning curve of the API.
I'm not saying that Eiffel would be a better choise than C, as there are probably to few people who know it.