«

When will C have an object model?

Tech07 wrote:
> When will C have an object model?
>
>
Please explain your definition of "object model"
and how you think it will pertain to the
C language.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library

On 2009-09-06, Tech07 <> wrote:
> When will C have an object model?

C isn't an extensible programming language. So adding an object system to C
means that a new language is created (possibly one which has significant
backward compatibility).

This has already happened, quite long ago, and the results were given names
like C++ and Objective C.

On 6 sep, 06:40, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-06, Tech07 <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:
>
> > When will C have an object model?
>
> C isn't an extensible programming language.

You could be interested by

http://cos.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewv...raft-dls09.pdf

to see how C itself is extensible and can do better than Objective-C.
The C Object System is a C library which adds a rather complete object
model to C (like CLOS to Common Lisp) and allows to build component
(reusable generic object) that you can't built in C++ or Objective-C.

One great thing with C is that it _hasn't_ an object model and
therefore you can have your own. C is just missing two _syntactic_
extension to emulate subtyping and overloading (backward compatible)
and be qualified as an OO language.

cheers,

ld.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:59:45 -0500 Tech07 <> wrote:

| When will C have an object model?

It doesn't need one. Applications may need one, but languages don't.
If you application needs one, choose a language that has one.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

phil-news- wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:59:45 -0500 Tech07 <> wrote:
>
> | When will C have an object model?
>
> It doesn't need one. Applications may need one, but languages don't.
> If you application needs one, choose a language that has one.

And even then you can choose any language you like. You'll just have a
little more work to do, implementing all the object system's backend stuff.

Or use a ready to use object system. For C there is GObject. (Please no
debates, GObject works and does it's job very well. In my experience GNOME
is a lot more stable than KDE, and I'm saying this as a mainly-KDE user).


Wolfgang

On Sep 6, 3:59*am, "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> wrote:
> When will C have an object model?

Is this zero-terminated, or counted objects?

--
Bartc

Tech07 wrote:
> When will C have an object model?

When the National Hockey League schedules games in Hell.

--
Eric Sosman
lid

In article <>,
Malcolm McLean <> wrote:
....
>Opinion is moving against object-oriented programming.

Is it? I want to make it clear that I have no opinion on the subject,
nor any stake in the outcome. I am just curious.

But I will say this: The statement above looks like a political
statement - like you generally see in the political/religious (Yes, at
least in America, they are one in the same) groups. I.e., a "He said,
she said" situation. For example, you often see this (in fact, this and
variations of it are about all you do see in the political/religious
groups):

A: The Republican party is dead (marginalized, of no consequence).
Note that its standards bearer these days is Sarah Palin (snicker, snicker)

B: (No it's not) Surveys show that Americans are becoming more
conservative (pro-life, etc, etc)

So, what makes you think it (programming) is moving against OO?

In article <>,
Malcolm McLean <> wrote:
....
>Stuff I've read. You used to read plenty of articles attacking C++, but not
>object-oritented programming itself. Now I've notice far more material
>attacking the very concept of object oriented programming.
>
>Dijkstra said "Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea
>which could only have originated in California"
>
>The Wikipedia entry on "object-oriented programming" has a list of critics.
>
>I'd admit this isn't a very scientific survey, more an impression about they
>way the wind is blowing.

OK. What do you think is going to be "the next big thing"?

BTW, the way these things go is that by the time business/industry has
firmly adopted something, that's the clue that it is time for the
academics and other smart people to disparage it and move on to "the
next big thing." I.e., down in the trenches (business and industry)
they seem to like OO just fine.