OOP

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

Yes. It never works very well. If that's what you want, just use C++ and
discipline yourself not to use the features that you think hamper
readability. (That is what I already do in C. The fact that goto, say, is
available does not mean that I am required to use it.)

I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

campyhapper@yahoo.com wrote:>
I got the e_type interface for sorting functions from Dann Corbit.
It's a step in the direction towards templates. I like it.
All you have to do is
#define E_TYPE /* array element type */
and
#define GT(A, B) /* a "Greater Than" macro */
and you can sort a one dimensional array of any type.

And although I'm [...] a careful coder, chances are
higher that, if I say to an employer "I'm a C++
programmer" they will stick me with someone else's
C++ code that is incomprehensible than if I say I'm
a C programmer.

pete wrote:>
>
Interesting, this reminds me of the ADT trick used by Sedgewick, in his
"Algorithms in C" books, where an algorithm implementation could look
like this:
>
>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "Item.h"
#include "STACK.h"
static Item *s;
static int N;
void STACKinit(int maxN)
{ s = malloc(maxN*sizeof(Item)); N = 0; }
int STACKempty()
{ return N == 0; }
void STACKpush(Item item)
{ s[N++] = item; }
Item STACKpop()
{ return s[--N]; }
>
>
while the user write an <Item.hand call the generic algorithms like this:
>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include "Item.h"
#include "STACK.h"
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{ char *a = argv[1]; int i, N = strlen(a);
STACKinit(N);
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
if (a[i] == ')')
printf("%c ", STACKpop());
if ((a[i] == '+') || (a[i] == '*'))
STACKpush(a[i]);
if ((a[i] >= '0') && (a[i] <= '9'))
printf("%c ", a[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?
>
Thanks.

But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

The original cfront "C with Classes" C++ translator was last updated in
January 2007.

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?
>
Thanks.

>... has anyone ever tried to create a
>sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
>to C just a few key features and disallows things
>like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

Why not just use the features you want and ignore the
ones you dont like??
The language will work just as well.
>

And if I'm going to turn back the clock, I
might as well go with Objective C.

and disallows things like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?

And despite your dismissal of it, ObjC fulfills your description of the
language you want precisely:
>>
Check. *No templates and MI is explicitly disallowed.

Hi folks,
>
I tend to prefer C, and of course I know that structs
can be used in C to achieve something like
an object-oriented design. And I prefer C in part
because C++ has, I think, grown into a bit of a
monster wherein readability is sacrificed.
But I wonder, has anyone ever tried to create a
sort of lite version of C++, a C+ if you will, that adds
to C just a few key features and disallows things
like templates, multiple inheritance and the like?
>
Thanks.

>
Why do you want a new lang. if what you want is really a subset of C+
+? May be implementing object oriented concepts in C itself will solve
your purpose. (As pete demonstrated)