Re: Correct C++ tutorial chapter 2.1 "Classes" available (Windows, mingw/msvc/std)
From: M Jared Finder (jared_at_hpalace.com)
Date: 29 Mar 2005 16:55:39 -0500 To: (Usenet)
Thomas Hansen wrote:
> Chris Riesbeck wrote:
>>And there are many strongly-typed functional programming languages.
Most (all?) useful high level languages are strongly typed. The last
time I used a weakly typed high level language was programming in TCL,
which was difficult due to its weak typing. The languages I use now (C,
Python, Lisp) are all strongly typed.
> But their motivation is still the same, OO is just after all an
> extremity of typesafety.
> Instead of having a method signature with a given type and issuing a
> compiler warning/error when trying to call the method with the wrong
> type you couple the method within the type making it impossible to make
> your sub fly...
> In practise you're right, in theory I must declare that I dissagree.
> But I guess this is one of those subjects where we all do alot of
> armwaving and "you know what I mean" stuff...
> At least in the theoretical perspective.
> Let the chicken and egg problem pass us unnoticed!
It seems to me like you're looking at OO backwards. OO to me is about
polymorphism, where you think of things in terms of shared interfaces
and per-call implementations. What is dispatched on doesn't matter as
much to me as that the dispatch exists. The dispatch has the side
effect of type-safety, but that has never seemed to me to be the prime
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]