Like Tree1Likes

Advice on next steps - shifting to OOP

This is a discussion on Advice on next steps - shifting to OOP within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by whiteflags Then what is a modern application? A modern application is software developed for a platform such ...

  1. #16
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,543
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteflags View Post
    Then what is a modern application?
    A modern application is software developed for a platform such as PC in today's times. Typically such applications tend to grow complex.
    That is how it's defined by my book anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #17
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    I think you are forgetting about embedded systems. A great deal of that code is 'modern' even though the hardware it's on is far less than modern.

  3. #18
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,543
    Perhaps. Not much experience with those things.
    But typically any modern hardware, embedded or not, requires complex code.
    And then I would say it is good to have a modern language.
    It is supposed to make things easier, after all, so it can't hurt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #19
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,666
    But your definition of a modern language depends entirely upon the application: how complex it is and when it was shipped (or written). Therefore anything used to write a 'modern' application according to you is a modern language. Including C? Could you maybe be more specific? Or maybe we could drop the subject?

  5. #20
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Dropping the subject sounds good to me. I would not deem a language modern or antiquated based on any of the criteria that have been mentioned.
    And my advice to the OP was not a ploy to get them to use C++. I don't care what language they use. Using C++ does not make you an object oriented programmer any more than walking into McDonald's makes you a hamburger.
    manasij7479 likes this.

  6. #21
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,543
    We could drop the subject, if you want It doesn't really matter to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  7. #22
    Registered User officedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Object oriented principles are not about this language or that language. That comes down to a matter of semantics on how to implement this or that OOP pattern in the language. The principles remain the same. I would recommend reading up on design patterns in general and would not focus on any certain language. A book on UML would also be a good read.
    Just going back to your comment here Bubba. I did a short search yesterday and I found things like:

    north.londonmet.ac.uk

    http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/oopuml.aspx

    And this was quite interesting from Bruce Eckells who gives a more critical angle:

    http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpo...?thread=115101

    Do you have any other recommendations about books or websites that give a good introduction to these ideas?

  8. #23
    Ex scientia vera
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    That does not mean it is the best choice for them. I think they are pushing this for small games and apps that can run both on PC and XBox. I seriously doubt any real game dev companies are considering using it. I'm sure that the big retail games are running C++ even on the XBox.
    C# is a great language and very useful albeit I feel Microsoft is pushing it for something it really was not designed for just to keep it relevant. I believe it's relevance comes in the fact that it is so simple to create GUI apps and the idea of no headers which I must say I do enjoy.

    I could be wrong but with games even pushing the speed envelope using C++ I seriously doubt any company is going to risk using a completely different language. Mainly because I don't see what it brings to the table that C++ does not and most of the game engines at companies are already in C/C++ so migrating to C# would be a pain.

    I've also noticed that most of Microsoft's so-called C++ code look strangely like C programs. If you look at the DXUT you will see one file has over 6000 lines in it. Does not look like C++ to me. So we have a company that does not appear to push good object oriented code pushing some new object oriented language? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Microsoft is masterful at C but not with C++. Most of their programmers are probably hard-core C programmers and you can tell it when you look at their supposed C++ code.
    Microsoft, like anything else, that size, is divided into numerous departments and similar, as you probably know. Therefore it is completely illogical to expect the developers of C#(Anders Hejlsberg and his cohorts) to have anything to do with any code in the microsoft operating systems, except, of course, the .NET framework part of it.
    You might be right - perhaps their programmers' C++-fu is weak due to way too much exposure to imperative programing, but the minds behind C# and its sibling languages in the .NET framework are, in my opinion, some of the greatest minds to shine their light on the programming world, ever.
    "What's up, Doc?"
    "'Up' is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value."

  9. #24
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,543
    Quote Originally Posted by IceDane View Post
    ...but the minds behind C# and its sibling languages in the .NET framework are, in my opinion, some of the greatest minds to shine their light on the programming world, ever.
    Ugh. They need to be shot and burned.
    C# and Microsoft's .NET crap is worst thing that has happened.
    Majority of code is done in native, still today, yet all we hear is managed, managed, managed, managed, managed! It annoys me to no end. I don't want crap-managed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #25
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    I've also noticed that most of Microsoft's so-called C++ code look strangely like C programs. If you look at the DXUT you will see one file has over 6000 lines in it. Does not look like C++ to me. So we have a company that does not appear to push good object oriented code pushing some new object oriented language? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Microsoft is masterful at C but not with C++. Most of their programmers are probably hard-core C programmers and you can tell it when you look at their supposed C++ code.
    Procedural programming is much more readable for examples, where the point is to illustrate the use of a function or method, not to produce the fastest most elegant code. Sometimes I think people confuse procedural methods with C, even though C++ can also be written procedurally and OOP is not incompatible with the procedural style.

    Yes, in school you are taught to use OOP exclusively while learnign OOP, just like painters are taught to use a particular brush while learnign to use that brush, but to restrict yourself on real projects is to reject applying the most useful method for the task at hand, delaying the project, and possibly lockign out potential improvements. Mixing of 'pure' programming styles produces much better results than trying to paint a picture using only one size of brush and a single color.
    Last edited by abachler; 11-29-2008 at 07:26 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  11. #26
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    ...delaying the project, and possibly lockign out potential improvements.
    While it is true you do not want to do this it is also true that you do not want to create a maintenance nightmare. C++ done procedurally becomes just that and is also hard to componentize later. I do not see it a lot except for in most of Microsoft's sample code so perhaps they are just trying to illustrate a concept and 'get it done' so to speak. Their DXUT is absolutely a mess and there are far better frameworks out there to begin with. After looking at DXUT I will not be recommending it to anyone but my worst enemies.

  12. #27
    Ex scientia vera
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Ugh. They need to be shot and burned.
    C# and Microsoft's .NET crap is worst thing that has happened.
    Majority of code is done in native, still today, yet all we hear is managed, managed, managed, managed, managed! It annoys me to no end. I don't want crap-managed.
    What's so bad about type-safety and garbage collection?
    "What's up, Doc?"
    "'Up' is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value."

  13. #28
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,543
    Slow.
    There should be minimum run-time penalties and maximum compile time safety.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #29
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by IceDane View Post
    What's so bad about type-safety and garbage collection?
    People are supposed to collect their own garbage. It's better to write code that doesn't leave garbage in the first place.

    Type-safety is often a nuisance since I have to use many typecasts to do a simple operation - a very annoying thing for people who do a little bit of low-level stuff.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  15. #30
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,543
    Spoken like a true C programmer...
    I like type-safety. Less chance to do many errors.
    It works very well with high-level design, and using proper types and constructors, even low-level stuff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. OOP flu
    By Hussain Hani in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-27-2009, 02:02 AM
  2. Data Mapping and Moving Relationships
    By Mario F. in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-14-2006, 09:32 AM
  3. Logical errors with seach function
    By Taka in forum C Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-18-2006, 05:20 AM
  4. recommendation for a good OOP book
    By Mario F. in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-15-2006, 04:28 PM
  5. Folding@Home Cboard team?
    By jverkoey in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 398
    Last Post: 10-11-2005, 08:44 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21