Re: OO? Oh oh!

• Previous message: Howard Brazee: "Re: Market driven vs Standards (was: OO? Oh oh!"
• In reply to: RH: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
• Next in thread: Hugh Candlin: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: 30 Jan 2004 10:28:54 -0800

"RH" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote

> -write a basic 3D rendering engine in C; go ahead and use APIs if you want.
> -then rewrite it in C++ or Delphi or even Java (although it won't be fast).
>
> By the time you are done you'll be thinking "Holy Crap, who the heck would
> do something that complicated in C when you have OO language X." Even John
> Carmack now uses C++ instead of C; and he's a harcore coder.

It is certain that C++ has some features that overcome the problems
and limitations of C. It is also a given that for certain types of
applications (such as a 3D rendering engine) the facilities of C++
match the abstraction much more easily. Basically, C++ allows the
programmer, via the OO facilities, to create a higher level
programming language that is more suitable for writing the program
than C ever would be.

The question is how does this apply to Cobol and business
applications.

Cobol is not C, it doesn't have the problems that C++ overcomes in C.

Cobol already is a business application programming language. In many
cases it doesn't need the facility of being able to create a new
language specific to the problem set, it already is that.

The priciples of OO Design are very useful to apply to Cobol
programming, but arguing the deficiencies of C and the needs of a 3D
render do not translate directly into an argument supporting OO Cobol
for use on business applications.

• Previous message: Howard Brazee: "Re: Market driven vs Standards (was: OO? Oh oh!"
• In reply to: RH: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
• Next in thread: Hugh Candlin: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]