Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome "I followed the debate about a successor for the C/C++ combination as the primary language for developing the GNOME core desktop platform very closely last month. There has been discussion about a number of options. What I would like to do on this page is give an overview how a probably less well-known language might be a viable compromise as a C/C++ successor. This language is called Eiffel and exists for over a decade. Eiffel takes the principle of Object-Oriented programming to its extremes and, as a consequence, is a very easy to learn language."
Thread beginning with comment 65218
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Bind me!
by ma_d on Sun 27th Nov 2005 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bind me!"
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

And that objects inherit functions from their parents. For example, if I have a GtkRadioButton I can call GtkButton and GtkWidget methods on it, because they're both parents.

I've not tried getting too crazy with this, but it's generally worked for me so far. I'm guessing it breaks down somewhere, and I'm sure the enforcement of the OO nature is by hand; but yes, you can write OO stuff in c. And Gtk is a very good example.

A hello world program in c would be simply sending a pointer to the first character of the string and the print function prints until it hits . It's not showing any kind of inheritance, data hiding, or anything like that; so it's not object oriented.
I don't know what you're talking about with this "string object" idea. It's just a series of bytes on the program stack...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Bind me!
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 04:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Bind me!"
Member since:

Object Orientation is a very abstract thing, and I've had it twisted against me many a time in arguments, which is why I prefer to define what I'm talking about beforehand. Object Oriented doesn't imply another other than being "oriented" around "object", neither of which is very descriptive. As far as I know, there is no definition of OO, and it's doubtful there ever will be as there are so many different versions.

It's not showing any kind of inheritance, data hiding, or anything like that; so it's not object oriented.

None of those are intrinsic properties of OO.

I don't know what you're talking about with this "string object" idea. It's just a series of bytes on the program stack...

So is any other type of data, which is where you miss the point. OO isn't data, it's how you look at it and treat it. Unfortunately, the general definition of "OO" tends toward strict and overcomplicated designs with lots of extra crud slopped on top of the code.

-bytecoder

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Bind me!
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 04:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Bind me!"
Member since:

"Object Orientation is a very abstract thing, and I've had it twisted against me many a time in arguments, which is why I prefer to define what I'm talking about beforehand. Object Oriented doesn't imply another other than being "oriented" around "object", neither of which is very descriptive. As far as I know, there is no definition of OO, and it's doubtful there ever will be as there are so many different versions. "

We've had this discussion before and I told you before that "Holub on Patterns" had a definition of what an "Object" was. Maybe it would be more proper to say that there's a central quality of what OO is, and multiple misunderstandings of what OO is. OO seems to be right next to XML in the "misunderstanding" department.

"Unfortunately, the general definition of "OO" tends toward strict and overcomplicated designs with lots of extra crud slopped on top of the code. "

Judging by a lot of code I've seen over the years. Apparently OO isn't needed to get the above qualities.

Maybe we should start giving all programmers a copy of "The pragmatic programmer"?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Bind me!
by ma_d on Sun 27th Nov 2005 05:03 in reply to "RE[5]: Bind me!"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Well there's not much point in calling it OO if everything is OO now is there?

From wikipedia:
"The idea behind object-oriented programming is that a computer program is composed of a collection of individual units, or objects, as opposed to a traditional view in which a program is a list of instructions to the computer."

It's still very vague, but I think there's a clear line which would let any reasonable individual see that some things are OO, and some things are not OO.

Anyway, you're running this off into a vague argument over nothing.

Reply Parent Score: 1