On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:45:24AM +0200, Felix Buenemann wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2003 20:21, D Richard Felker III wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 12:48:52PM +0200, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2003 19:39:33 -0400
D Richard Felker III <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
If this is true, I rest my case that the Matroska developers are idiots....
Why ? Operator overloading is one of the best features of C++. it makes the code much more readable if you have to handle complex objects.
IMO it makes code unreadably confusing, at least when you overload certain operators. Even worse still is when you overload == but not !=, + but not +=, etc. so that it's inconsistent!
I must admit that operator overloading is not easy to handle, but it really has nice uses eg. when working with complex numbers. Anyways you can't compare C to C++ as they have different uses. C is used for system near programing with high level of code control, while
Yes.
C++ is good for abstracting processes and data giving an easy to use/human friendly api for accessing those from other places without needing to know stuff about the coding internas.
No, a good object oriented language is good for this, as is a very high level language. ocaml comes to mind, and python is prolly ok too for more script/prototyping type tasks. IMO C++ is not good for anything. It's just the worst of both worlds...
Eg. I prefer object oriented approaches for bigger database driven projects, where code speed doesn't play a primary role. In such case I can have an object keeping track of my database connections and associated data without me needing to keep an eye when to open or close a connection etc.
I agree here. Object oriented languages have their place where, and ONLY WHERE, data is the center of focus. When the process is the center of focus, a procedural language makes sense. Trying to make procedures into objects (with a few settings to control their behavior as the 'data' for the class) is nonsense! Rich