Re: attack of silly coding standard?
On Dec 7, 3:19 pm, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2010 11:01, James Kanze wrote:
It is a bullshit position to say that constructors and destructors
(which RAII utilizes) has nothing to do with *C++* OOP.
Then I guess people like Booch are just spouting bullshit. I'd
suggest that you learn what OO means before trying to explain it
to other people.
I know what OO means; I know what it /traditionally/ means: inheritance,
encapsulation, polymorphism; I also know what it means in the real C++
world: establishing, maintaining and tearing down a class invariant
through the use of constructors (and RAII), correct public interface and
destructors.
Yes. I did some searching on the network, and there does seem
to be a community where OO simply means using class instead of
struct. This is not the traditional use, however, and not the
use I'm used to hearing in the professional world. (Maybe
because a candidate who can't make the distinction between
paradigms like OO, compile time generics, and simple
encapsulation doesn't get hired.)
In the end, it's a question of vocabulary: judging from what
I've seen (in an admittedly very quick scan of the network),
people who understand the traditional meaning use OO with that
meaning.
One could argue that maintaining an class invariant is
covered by "encapsulation" and that would be a fair point but you very
rarely make fair points; you quite often make trollish points.
Is this your only troll of the day or are there more to come? Pathetic.
And there you go back into your ad hominum attacks. When you
try, you can do better. (FWIW: "encapsulation" is a very old
idea, and not unique to OO. And the notion of "invariant" as
well.)
--
James Kanze