4 ms·
> It is not an OO language That seems really outlandish and obviously flat-out wrong. I assume, then, that you have good reasons to have this contrarian positi
by javert 11y ago
> It is not an OO language
That seems really outlandish and obviously flat-out wrong. I assume, then, that you have good reasons to have this contrarian position, and I am really curious to hear what they are :).
When I think of C++ I think of "C with classes." In other words... C with objects. And... a bunch of other stuff tacked on over the years. Which is not to discount that stuff---maybe that is what your argument rests on; if so, that's fine.
- bluejekyll 11y agoC++ can be OO, but isn't always OO. If OO is defined as having polymorphic runtime function invocation, then C++ allows you to opt-in to this behavior with 'virtual' and heap allocation, vs. Java which requires you to opt-out with 'final' and all objects are always heap allocated. My biggest thing in support of OO is that it encourages DRY more affectively than other paradigms, IMO. But I am finding Rust's balancing of functional w/ OO allows for you to pick the best method to DRY (don't repeat yourself). Anyone who doesn't practice DRY programming doesn't understand the cost of maintaining production code and technical debt.
- sklogic 11y agoTell this to A. Stepanov (creator of STL). He maintains that C++ is not an OOP language and OOP has a very little place in it, if any at all. C++ is not a C with classes. It is a C with namespaces, templates and RAII.