Re: [Alephmodular-devel] Enum versus class?

[Dietrich E. <die...@zd...>]

On Saturday, Mar 1, 2003, at 11:27 US/Pacific, Br'fin wrote:

> From: "Br'fin" <br...@ma...>
> Date: Sat Mar 1, 2003  11:27:59 US/Pacific
> To: ale...@li...
> Subject: [Alephmodular-devel] Enum versus class?
>
> As part of dealing with abstracting the display stuff I found myself=20=

> wanting to back off a little and implement a BitDepth enum. Or=20
> similar. So I've been dabbling with it, and in wanting some class=20
> related foo I ended up developing the following:

[...]

> And I'm trying to figure out if this is appropriate or overblown. If=20=

> it's overblown then I should just fall back to using the enum by its=20=

> lonesome.

<rant>

Hate to break it to you, but that is most abuse I have ever seen the=20
C++ language take.  In Ada we would write:

type Bit_Depth is (Depth_8, Depth_16, Depth_32);

or something along those lines.  In C, it would be:

typedef enum _bit_depth { depth_8, depth_16, depth_32 } bit_depth;

If C++ is such a superior language, why does it take so damn much code?=20=

  The above two examples provide the same functionality (although only=20=

the Ada version has the bounds checking).  THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY.  I=20
could use less code programming it in assembly.  Why the hell do you=20
need bounds checking anyway?  private vs. public?  A class?  Damn, I=20
would have just used existing functionality.  It is no wonder that the=20=

Marathon engine doesn't see any significant changes when people waste=20
so much effort on things that really only need one line of code.

I'm not really bashing C++, it's just that it has it's strong points=20
and its weak points like most languages (Intercal a notable exception).=20=

  C++ has exceptions - these are good!  Use them!  That way you don't=20
have to manually check for errors -- essentially, instead of doing an=20
operation and asking "Was there an error?", if there is an error it=20
takes care of itself.  Classes and namespaces: another good thing. =20
Instead of calling BKSparseArray_GetValues (...)  we can just do=20
something like myArray.GetValues (...), or even myArray[...].  Making=20
classes for everything you can think of?  Well, do that in Ada because=20=

Ada was designed to do that, and you can imitate it with C using enum=20
and struct, but class is a beast of a different nature and it should be=20=

treated that way.  C++ has a dichotomy of classes and not-classes, you=20=

have to deal with this or use a different language like Smalltalk or=20
Python.

I bring this up because I hate to see projects make the mistakes that=20
are so damn ubiquitous these days... some things should be learnt=20
though experience, but large projects are not places for such learning=20=

of design methods.

-----

"The main problem for the C++ community today is to use Standard C++ in=20=

the way it was intended rather than as a glorified C or a poor man's=20
Smalltalk."
=97 Bjarne Stroustrup (inventor of C++),         "Getting =46rom The =
Past=20
To The Future" ,
  p. 23 C++ Report, SIGS Nov/Dec 1999 Vol1 No.10

C++: The power of assembly language with the ease of use of assembly=20
language.

"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have=20=

C++ in mind."
=97 Alan Kay

"C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog"

</rant>=