Re: C++ sucks for games
From: Christopher C. Stacy (cstacy_at_news.dtpq.com)
Date: 11/08/04
- Next message: Markus Elfring: "Re: conversion: errno => exception"
- Previous message: Thomas Matthews: "Re: Game Control Storage"
- In reply to: chris: "Re: C++ sucks for games"
- Next in thread: Kenneth Tilton: "Re: C++ sucks for games"
- Reply: Kenneth Tilton: "Re: C++ sucks for games"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:56:56 GMT
chris <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> > "Chris" <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
> > [Greg Menke:]
> >
> >>>There are no "member functions" in Lisp, all functions exist outside
> >>>the definition of classes. That will sound strange to people only
> >>>familiar with the C++ style of OO, but it works very nicely once you
> >>>get used to it.
> > [Chris:]
> >
> >>In that case, you could simply write C++ and not use member
> >>functions. Arguing that C++'s member functions don't look like normal
> >>function calls and in lisp they do sounds stupid if in fact lisp
> >>doesn't have member functions.
> > I think you may have misunderstood Greg. Although it's true
> > that Lisp doesn't have "member functions", it isn't true that
> > Lisp is like C++-without-member-functions. If you abandon
> > member functions in C++, then inheritance becomes impossible.
> > Lisp's "generic functions" *do* support inheritance.
> >
>
> Ah, sorry. I know a (little) lisp, so I should have realised the point.
>
> I find these lisp vs. C++ discussions fun, but also wonder
> if they have any purpose.
No, not really.
- Next message: Markus Elfring: "Re: conversion: errno => exception"
- Previous message: Thomas Matthews: "Re: Game Control Storage"
- In reply to: chris: "Re: C++ sucks for games"
- Next in thread: Kenneth Tilton: "Re: C++ sucks for games"
- Reply: Kenneth Tilton: "Re: C++ sucks for games"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
