When will C have an object model?

[user923005]

"OMG!". That would be a fine and dandy statement by someone who was in
charge of this "C" thing, or the standard. This is GREAT info for me. I
wanted to know where "this C thing" stands/is. You suggest that C is a
tombstone. And I do to, but in different ways. What's the difference? (Note
to self: you know).

Languages never die, if they have utility.
Consider COBOL.

There are perfectly good OO languages available. Why try to force all
languages to fit in this box?

There are perfectly good functional languages available. Not all pegs
should be pounded into this hole either.

Some languages are handy for counting beans, if all you want to do is
count beans.

Some languages are nice for doing matrices.

Some languages are nice for scripting.

It is a mistake to try to turn every language into the grand vision
that solves all problems. In the end, that approach will cause as
many problems as it solves.

IMO-YMMV

 

[Tech07]

C was designed as a procedural language.
It's great for writing procedural code.

If OO is wanted, then it is better to start with something designed
for it from the start.

I agree: C is dead, RIP.

The alternative (C transmongrified into OO) is C++,

That, of course, is entirely wrong, for there is more than one way to smoke
pot. (Is there a link between C++ and cancer?).

which is actually
pretty good for OO stuff.

I'd assess it as right up there with C strings.

Or Objective C.

And what do YOU know about THAT?!

I doubt if a new effort
will do better than those.

And you thought I would be interested in such belief? (Did Barnum or Jehovah
say you should sell circus bibles?)

Most OO languages turn into gigantic piles of floating slop over
time.

Oh, and YOU know that do ya? Hmm.

Look at Java.

"hello!". Yes, you should, maybe. I'm not your "priest" (do they still have
alter bois in dresses?)

I think I can safely say

In what country!? Surely you jest, have just blasphemed, or are yet to board
the train.

Now, I like big, massive C++.

Are you gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that, unless they are
blowing politicians and oppressing others via that.

I would hate it if C
transmongrified into another OO language and left it's old, simple
procedure model behind.

C is dead. RIP. You must have missed sandcastle lessons in school.

The thing I like most about C is I know it through and through.

No one is taking that away from you. You have C! It will alway be there (as
long as you live, you'll keep it alive when the money mongers have abandoned
it: I hope you let it go before you go though, seriously).

And
the standard is small enough that one person can become proficient in
the language in a relatively short period of time.

"totally non-topical!!" "this is c.l.c and .... you've been detected as a
RUNNER!". There is no ankh.

It takes a long time to learn an OO language, and even then they tend
to move faster than I can keep up.

I am speechless. (Isn't that a change).

 

[Seebs]

I agree: C is dead, RIP.

Uh.

Not really, no. C is not an object-oriented language. There are tasks
for which an object-oriented language is not wanted.

And what do YOU know about THAT?!

Well, apparently not that the name is officiallyy "Objective-C".

I've used it enough to think that, if you want a partially object-oriented
language that's still mostly like C, it's probably a good choice.

But there's still stuff for which C, and not an OO language, is probably
the right choice.

-s

 

[Tech07]

Languages never die,

Is that a "mantra". Too close to "007" movies to be effective, hmm?

if they have utility.
Consider COBOL.

Before my time. Consider Delphi. Now write your report. You can't write
anything without an "accepted level of completeness" (go ask Alf in c.l.c++
about that his grade): I'll give you an F.

There are perfectly good OO languages available.

Surely there are not because so many are trying to make one. Look at D for
example. And before you say "I said OO language", I say right back at you:
get a clue, don't play politics with me.

Why try to force all
languages to fit in this box?

There are perfectly good functional languages available. Not all pegs
should be pounded into this hole either.

Some languages are handy for counting beans, if all you want to do is
count beans.

Some languages are nice for doing matrices.

Some languages are nice for scripting.

It is a mistake

Put your name on that! Have you heard the moniker, "language of the month
club"?

They call you "script kiddies". I call you "sheeple".

 

[Tech07]

Uh.

Not really, no. C is not an object-oriented language. There are
tasks for which an object-oriented language is not wanted.

You are campaigning against Universities? Or asking for one to be on online

Well, apparently not that the name is officiallyy "Objective-C".

I've used it enough to think that, if you want a partially
object-oriented language that's still mostly like C, it's probably a
good choice.

You will not get the sales job for Objective C. Move on.

But there's still stuff for which C, and not an OO language, is
probably the right choice.

Hot air. Waste of bandwidth (but now, more waste of space).

 

[Seebs]

You are campaigning against Universities?

No.

I am asserting that C is not dead, and that it does not need an object
model to save it from becoming dead.

You will not get the sales job for Objective C.

I don't expect to.

Hot air. Waste of bandwidth (but now, more waste of space).

When you write these things, do you perceive some kind of relationship
between the posts you're quoting and your responses to them?

You appear (and I admit that I'm guessing) to be disputing my claim.
However, from what you've written, I can't tell whether you are actually
responding to my claim, if so, whether you're agreeing or disagreeing,
and either way, what arguments or reasons you would have for doing so.

-s

 

[Seebs]

"Duh!", I use C++

comp.lang.c++ is over thataway.

Yes, Apparently C++ is a superset of C

It's not.

I don't recognize you as an actuary of C.

What do you think the word "actuary" means?

c.l.c is unsanctioned, huh?

What do you think the word "unsanctioned" means?

-s

 

[Tech07]

You claim to believe this,

"Duh!", I use C++

and yet either you are still using it

Yes, Apparently C++ is a superset of C

(in
which case you clearly /don't/ believe it's dead)

I "use" C++.

or you are not (in
which case your subscribing to comp.lang.c is bizarre).

I don't recognize you as an actuary of C. c.l.c is unsanctioned, huh?

 

[user923005]

You are campaigning against Universities? Or asking for one to be on online
where I have not better thing to do than entertain your < name it! >.






You will not get the sales job for Objective C. Move on.




Hot air. Waste of bandwidth (but now, more waste of space).

Here is an interesting study:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=326103

This is the summary of the article:

"Summary
Our results indicate that in a commercial environment there may not be
a consistent statistically significant difference in the productivity
of object-oriented and procedural software development, at least not
for the first couple of generations of an object-oriented product. The
reason may be low reuse level, but it could also be the underlying
business model. Investigation of 19 commercial products has shown an
unusual economy of scale for both object-oriented and procedural
software that is difficult to explain with traditional productivity
drivers. However, a review of the underlying business workflows has
suggested that business deadlines may strongly influence the overall
productivity. In an environment where a typical delivery cycle for
product versions or release is on the order of 12-24 months it may be
more economical to preserve development team skills and expertise by
keeping them together whether they operate under the new release or
maintenance schedules. This may produce aggressive schedules for new
releases, and lax schedules for maintenance releases. Our data appears
to indicate that business workflows can play a key role in realizing
the potential productivity benefits from a new technology such as
object-orientation. For example, funding, staffing, and scheduling an
object-oriented project in the same way that is done for a procedural
project appears to dictate the productivity of the team, regardless of
the potential benefit of a given methodology. The adoption of an
object-oriented methodology may necessitate changes beyond merely the
new technology. The estimation of project effort, the scheduling of
project tasks, and the tracking of task completions should all be
examined based on the characteristics of a new technology. Otherwise,
investments in technology that has the potential to increase
productivity may be lost unless the underlying business work flows are
adjusted to take advantage of the improved software development
capabilities."

 

[Nick Keighley]

as usual much of what you are trying to say is obscured by an
odd use of the eglish language (I'm *assuming* you want to be
understood).

what?



Oh, I thought that preceded C++.

so what?

So you think I want to add an object model to C?

I must admit that I thought you did. Perhaps you could explain what
you do want or what point you are trying to make.

"OMG!". That would be a fine and dandy statement by someone who was in
charge of this "C" thing, or the standard.

er... you mean ISO?

This is GREAT info for me. I
wanted to know where "this C thing" stands/is. You suggest that C is a
tombstone.

no he doesn't. He suggests it is a low level langauge close to the
machine.
It doesn't need an object model.

And I do [too], but in different ways. What's the difference? (Note
to self: you know).

Sorry no idea what you mean. You seem to be asking yourself questions.
Is it rude for us to listen to your internal dialogue?

 

[Bart]

When you write these things, do you perceive some kind of relationship
between the posts you're quoting and your responses to them?

You appear (and I admit that I'm guessing) to be disputing my claim.
However, from what you've written, I can't tell whether you are actually
responding to my claim, if so, whether you're agreeing or disagreeing,
and either way, what arguments or reasons you would have for doing so.

The guy's an obvious nutter.

Trying to reason with him is going to be a waste of time.

 

[user923005]

The guy's an obvious nutter.

He's extrememly opinionated. Maybe he's just a college kid.

Trying to reason with him is going to be a waste of time.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until the last possible
moment.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

T> "OMG!". That would be a fine and dandy statement by someone who
T> was in charge of this "C" thing, or the standard. This is GREAT
T> info for me. I wanted to know where "this C thing" stands/is. You
T> suggest that C is a tombstone.

No, I suggest that C is a very fine thing as it stands, and adding an
object model just because all the cool languages are doing it will make
it considerably less useful for the very things it is best at while not
making it sufficiently useful enough for anything else.

Charlton

 

[Nick Keighley]

What do you think the word "actuary" means?

actuary (n): someone actuarilly knows something about a subject

What do you think the word "unsanctioned" means?

the UN still allows us sell oil in return for food

 

[Richard Bos]

Conversely, programs written in Visual Basic and running in
investment banks may add a lot of value, but be rather simple technically.

Almost bang on the anniversary of Lehman Brothers' collapse, this was
just about the worst example you could have used.

Richard

 

[Tech07]

No.

I am asserting that C is not dead, and that it does not need an object
model to save it from becoming dead.

Oh. Maybe they shouldn't have put assertion checking in C either. But I
don't want to participate in religious flamewars. So can assert yer self
silly for all I care.

I don't expect to.

I have no gripe with those who sing karaoke (unless it hurts my ears that
is!).

When you write these things, do you perceive some kind of relationship
between the posts you're quoting and your responses to them?

Well, I hardly log on every day (sometimes not even every week) so what I
miss, I just make up something and run with it!

You appear (and I admit that I'm guessing) to be disputing my claim.

See above where I said something about flamewar.

However, from what you've written, I can't tell whether you are
actually responding to my claim, if so, whether you're agreeing or
disagreeing, and either way, what arguments or reasons you would have
for doing so.

Sounds like a resume for a politician! (Guess I missed my calling, oh well).

 

[Tech07]

comp.lang.c++ is over thataway.



It's not.

Only someone wanting to be extreme or someone who just wants to argue
apparently would say that.

What do you think the word "actuary" means?

Who cares. All that matters is what I meant. Don't compare IQs with me, cuz
you'll lose.
(hehehehe! ).

What do you think the word "unsanctioned" means?

It doesn't matter what it means. All that matters is what I meant.

Yes, this was a test of your intuitive capability, of which it is determined
that you have none.

Hey! I think I finally have got the hang of c.l.c. as projected by "the
regulars" (?).

(Are we having fun yet?!)

 

[Tech07]

as usual much of what you are trying to say is obscured by an
odd use of the eglish language (I'm *assuming* you want to be
understood).




so what?


I must admit that I thought you did. Perhaps you could explain what
you do want or what point you are trying to make.

With my OP? The subject says it all! But, I think "ya'all" might be right: C
with an OO model may be like putting lipstick on a pig. I've said it 3 times
now so surely that's what I glean from this thread.

er... you mean ISO?

ISO, eye-ess-shmo.

no he doesn't. He suggests it is a low level langauge close to the
machine.
It doesn't need an object model.

That is non-sequitur though.

And I do [too], but in different ways. What's the difference? (Note
to self: you know).

Sorry no idea what you mean. You seem to be asking yourself questions.
Is it rude for us to listen to your internal dialogue?

I don't want to keep separate notes about USENET info, I know where it's at:
in my newsreader, with embedded notes to self.

 

[Tech07]

No, I suggest that C is a very fine thing as it stands, and adding an
object model just because all the cool languages are doing it will
make it considerably less useful for the very things it is best at
while not making it sufficiently useful enough for anything else.

So you think C with an object model would ... do what? I'm not even going to
entertain that. I'll just say, you don't pay for what you don't use. In a
previous post, someone suggested "mandatory object model", as in "yes, ye
all will now only program in OO style". Stop wasting my time.

 

[Tech07]

It is perhaps because software is so malleable that we are so tempted
to change it. I doubt whether *any* computer language exists that
*exactly* meets the needs of more than a handful of people, so it is
natural for people to want to change the language(s) they use to suit
their needs more closely.

"a handful"? Surely you jest. And "to suit their needs more closely"? Baah:
C is a piss poor GP language. It IS a special purpose language. NOT
including things doesn't make it more general, and I think there are a
"handful" of people that believe such preposterousnous.

Changing a language can have advantages, but it also has
disadvantages.

One obvious advantage is that the language can be made more
expressive. For example, there is no doubt (in my mind, at least)
that operator overloading would make bignums much more palatable. So
it's natural to want to adapt the language to incorporate changes
like this.

But there are disadvantages, too. If every proposal for change were
accepted, we'd soon have a complete mess, a self-contradictory
language with no consistency in its constructs or syntax. So, even if
we're in favour of language change, we have to be selective if we're
going to prevent a descent into chaos.

And some people are holding back others and couldn't make a decision to save
their own life. As in: how long does it take you to select a bunch of
bananas at the grocery store? (rhetorical).

And even if we /are/ selective, a high rate of change makes it
difficult for implementors to keep up.

Pffft! That's what it's really all about, huh: the compiler owners. Compiler
owners have held back language design and evolution.

Even the comparatively modest
changes introduced by C99 have yet to filter through, in their
entirety, to the real world, ten years after the changes were
introduced to the Standard. The inevitable result will be
fragmentation,

Well that would be a nice thought: if you change "fragmentation" to "divided
and conquered"!

with implementors picking and choosing the changes
they want to include. Portability suffers enormously,

Portability is a ruse.

unless you
stick to the lowest common denominator (if it exists and is
sufficiently powerful, which - fortunately - is currently the case
for C).

That is like saying "there is nothing, so it includes everything". "C"
wouldn't know "GP language" if it got bit on the ass by it.

So it's a trade-off. Every feature you introduce, every change you
make, has a cost as well as (presumably) a benefit.

There was water, the horse wouldn't drink it, the horse died.

Personally, I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to make major
changes to the language would serve the world better either by
switching to an existing language that has the desired features or,
if that isn't possible, by designing a new language, and giving it a
different name.

One last time (I pretty sure I agree with you): It would be like putting
lipstick on a pig. (4)