Re: Anybody here endure C/Cpp? (.h to .inc conversion)

From: The Dragon (nobody_at_noemail.nospam)
Date: 01/03/05 

Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:00:26 -0600

On 2005-01-03, marcus <mrpier@juno.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:01:33 -0400, The Dragon <noemail@nospam.com> wrote:

> i'm all for that. i was thinking something like assembleable hypertext
> would be cool so youd only see a call or something but then only see a
> bunch of superfluous details when you wanted to see them. But i know that
> one thing doesnt really address OOP philosophy. Gotta get my definition
> of an object clearer I think, but I just dont want 'no user-serviceable
> parts inside' to appear anywhere.
> Just kidding.

While thats the case, the 'no user serviceable parts inside' is going a bit
far in this paradigm.

Its more like the design of your computer, consider, your video card dies,
you replace it, you don't hunt down the very electronic parts on it that
died, and try to replace them, because its probably cheaper in time (and
possibly money) to simply replace the card.

Same with OOP and abstraction, the abstraction allows you to provide an
"interface" to an object or "a fold of code and data", so that when
internal changes are made to the object, it doesn't necessarily have to
modify the output, and or, if you need to upgrade later you can define
a new interface while still supporting the old (for legacy use), or simply
replace the entire object with another that supports the same interface.

Hence, abstraction is a /very/ nice tool if used properly, sure it can make
it a little harder to wrap your head around a peice of code. But, if done
correctly the documentation should fill in the blanks, even if the object
code is almost completely opaque to you. (for instance, a compiled object
stuffed in a DLL)

Thus, its not a "hate the concept" thing, its a "hate the people who use the
concept without doing the leg work to make thier work usable" thing =}.

-- The Dragon
MHM 7x9, Hits ya harder than a 2x4

Relevant Pages

  • Re: object system...
    ... for that you need machine language. ... there are many other cases where "abstraction" can be leveraged to the ... never have an interface to access not doing something. ... based on class systems rather than type systems. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: object system...
    ... in order to use abstraction as self-target. ... Note that an object is defined by its responsibilities. ... never have an interface to access not doing something. ... The 3GL type systems are a compromise with the hardware computational models. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Adding abstract class...
    ... What is the difference between abstract and interface class? ... It depends on what camp you are in as to how you approach OO. ... The same tends to happen with an abstraction. ... For example I might use a pencil for writing or for digging the dirt ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Adding abstract class...
    ... What is the difference between abstract and interface class? ... The technical camp based on the approach developed ... The same tends to happen with an abstraction. ... > For example I might use a pencil for writing or for digging the dirt ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Modeling Infra Interfaces in UML
    ... It's clear what's going on at that level of abstraction. ... Lollipop to represent the offering of an interface is what I've seen in the ... in stereotypes to represent non-concrete interfaces. ... I would use notation as close as possible to 'singleton' class like ...
    (comp.object)