6 ms·

> I always got the feeling that java was c++ with a bit more religion about OO No way. C++ was always much more into the functional programming paradigm. (See

> I always got the feeling that java was c++ with a bit more religion about OO No way. C++ was always much more into the functional programming paradigm. (See the STL, for example.) The connection between C++ and OOP is because OOP was the insane hype at the time when C++ was being invented. The OOP lipservice was mandatory in order to be taken seriously by the fashion-driven programming industry, but real C++ programmers always looked down on OOP and considered it a code smell and crutch.

0815test 7y ago
> The connection between C++ and OOP is because OOP was the insane hype at the time when C++ was being invented. Not really, the C++ OOP features were directly modeled after very similar features in Simula. C++ was specifically designed as a way of bringing these sorts of features to C, although it did include other improvements to the language as well. Templates and the STL as we know it were a relatively late addition to the language. It's also worth mentioning that there's only a handful of things about OOP that could be genuinely considered "a code smell"; in fact you could restrict that concern to one feature, viz. implementation inheritance. Object-based programming which follows the "composition over inheritance" guideline can still broadly tap into the improved-modularity benefits that 'objects' are generally known for.
atilaneves 7y ago
> C++ was always much more into the functional programming paradigm. (See the STL, for example.) Always? The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98. Just a few years before, template implementations in compilers were buggy. There's a reason Qt has its own containers: because it's that old. > The connection between C++ and OOP is because OOP was the insane hype at the time when C++ was being invented No, it was because Bjarne wanted features from Simula whilst still generating fast code. > real C++ programmers always looked down on OOP and considered it a code smell and crutch. Absolutely not. Again, look at Qt. Look at CERN's ROOT. Java looks a lot like it does because that's how C++ code was written at the time. Even in the early 2000s I was getting funny looks from people when I told them to default to putting variables on the stack.
- otabdeveloper1 7y ago
  > The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98. C++ without a standard C++ library is not really C++. > No, it was because Bjarne wanted features from Simula whilst still generating fast code. Yeah, but Simula is somewhat its own thing, before the OOP madness. > Again, look at Qt. Look at CERN's ROOT. Java looks a lot like it does because that's how C++ code was written at the time. Only because C++ was the only thing available at the time, so people twisted it into 'OOP', despite the fact that C++ was very a poor fit for 'OOP'.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    >> The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98. > C++ without a standard C++ library is not really C++. You seem to be missing the point, which is that there was a time (two decades!) when the C++ standard library existed, but didn't include the STL. > Only because C++ was the only thing available at the time, so people twisted it into 'OOP', despite the fact that C++ was very a poor fit for 'OOP'. You are completely mistaken on your history here. C++ was intended to be "C with classes" from day one.
    - otabdeveloper1 7y ago
      "OOP" is not "X with classes". "Classes" is a low-level thing that you'd need for implementing many language features. Including things like 'abstract data types' of the ML kind. Good C++ style has always viewed "OOP" as something highly suspect and hacky. (This didn't apply to "classes" in the C++ vein, which are mostly about pre/post-conditions and RAII.)

0815test 7y ago

> The connection between C++ and OOP is because OOP was the insane hype at the time when C++ was being invented. Not really, the C++ OOP features were directly modeled after very similar features in Simula. C++ was specifically designed as a way of bringing these sorts of features to C, although it did include other improvements to the language as well. Templates and the STL as we know it were a relatively late addition to the language. It's also worth mentioning that there's only a handful of things about OOP that could be genuinely considered "a code smell"; in fact you could restrict that concern to one feature, viz. implementation inheritance. Object-based programming which follows the "composition over inheritance" guideline can still broadly tap into the improved-modularity benefits that 'objects' are generally known for.

atilaneves 7y ago

> C++ was always much more into the functional programming paradigm. (See the STL, for example.) Always? The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98. Just a few years before, template implementations in compilers were buggy. There's a reason Qt has its own containers: because it's that old. > The connection between C++ and OOP is because OOP was the insane hype at the time when C++ was being invented No, it was because Bjarne wanted features from Simula whilst still generating fast code. > real C++ programmers always looked down on OOP and considered it a code smell and crutch. Absolutely not. Again, look at Qt. Look at CERN's ROOT. Java looks a lot like it does because that's how C++ code was written at the time. Even in the early 2000s I was getting funny looks from people when I told them to default to putting variables on the stack.

otabdeveloper1 7y ago
> The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98. C++ without a standard C++ library is not really C++. > No, it was because Bjarne wanted features from Simula whilst still generating fast code. Yeah, but Simula is somewhat its own thing, before the OOP madness. > Again, look at Qt. Look at CERN's ROOT. Java looks a lot like it does because that's how C++ code was written at the time. Only because C++ was the only thing available at the time, so people twisted it into 'OOP', despite the fact that C++ was very a poor fit for 'OOP'.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  >> The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98. > C++ without a standard C++ library is not really C++. You seem to be missing the point, which is that there was a time (two decades!) when the C++ standard library existed, but didn't include the STL. > Only because C++ was the only thing available at the time, so people twisted it into 'OOP', despite the fact that C++ was very a poor fit for 'OOP'. You are completely mistaken on your history here. C++ was intended to be "C with classes" from day one.
  - otabdeveloper1 7y ago
    "OOP" is not "X with classes". "Classes" is a low-level thing that you'd need for implementing many language features. Including things like 'abstract data types' of the ML kind. Good C++ style has always viewed "OOP" as something highly suspect and hacky. (This didn't apply to "classes" in the C++ vein, which are mostly about pre/post-conditions and RAII.)