C++: 4 paradigms?

[crichmon]

I've perused the FAQ, found some mention of paradigm, but didn't really find
an answer to my question.

What is meant by "C++ is a 4 paradigm language?" What are the 4 paradigms
of C++ and what makes them paradigms? Is C++/CLI the 5th paradigm of C++?
why/why not?

thanks,
crichmon

[Phlip]

crichmon wrote:

I've perused the FAQ, found some mention of paradigm, but didn't really find an answer to my question.

What is meant by "C++ is a 4 paradigm language?" What are the 4 paradigms
of C++ and what makes them paradigms? Is C++/CLI the 5th paradigm of C++?
why/why not?

- procedural. Programs control flow directly
- OO. Programs control flow indirectly, thru virtual methods
- generic. Like OO but bound at compile time

- declarative.

The last one is like SQL. You arrange elements in the shape of the result
you want, pull the rip cord, and the elements drive an engine to produce the
result.

I have no idea how that should work in C++ or if it's what they meant.

I have never learned a reason to distinguish these paradigms. Just write.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

[Ioannis Vranos]

crichmon wrote:

I've perused the FAQ, found some mention of paradigm, but didn't really find
an answer to my question.

What is meant by "C++ is a 4 paradigm language?" What are the 4 paradigms
of C++ and what makes them paradigms? Is C++/CLI the 5th paradigm of C++?
why/why not?

Yes C++ is a multiparadigm language and currently supports 4 paradigms.
The procedural paradigm (functions etc), the modular paradigm
(namespaces), the object oriented paradigm and the generic programming
paradigm (templates). Each paradigm is supported well with optimal space
and time efficiencies.

Regarding C++/CLI, I have not seen anyone else call it as the 5th
paradigm except me. Perhaps you have seen it in my pages where I write
"We can dare to say that C++/CLI is the fifth paradigm of C++". However
I do not if this has much scientific basis, and I am going to remove
that line if I get many complaints about it. :-)


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Ioannis Vranos:

crichmon wrote:

I've perused the FAQ, found some mention of paradigm, but didn't really find
an answer to my question.

What is meant by "C++ is a 4 paradigm language?" What are the 4 paradigms
of C++ and what makes them paradigms? Is C++/CLI the 5th paradigm of C++?
why/why not?

Yes C++ is a multiparadigm language and currently supports 4 paradigms.
The procedural paradigm (functions etc), the modular paradigm
(namespaces), the object oriented paradigm and the generic programming
paradigm (templates). Each paradigm is supported well with optimal space
and time efficiencies.

I didn't know that.

But certainly it's not something everyone agrees on.

For example, I absolutely do not agree that C++ "supports" modular
programming, since there _is_ no module concept in C++. However,
C++ allows you to fake some of it by strictly following some set of
conventions (header file guards etc.). That's in the same spirit
as assembler language supports object-orientation (even old TASM).

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Ioannis Vranos]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

Yes C++ is a multiparadigm language and currently supports 4 paradigms.
The procedural paradigm (functions etc), the modular paradigm
(namespaces ), the object oriented paradigm and the generic programming
paradigm (templates). Each paradigm is supported well with optimal space
and time efficiencies.

I didn't know that.

But certainly it's not something everyone agrees on.

For example, I absolutely do not agree that C++ "supports" modular
programming, since there _is_ no module concept in C++. However,
C++ allows you to fake some of it by strictly following some set of
conventions (header file guards etc.). That's in the same spirit
as assembler language supports object-orientation (even old TASM).

I have seen what I said above in TC++PL3 . In chapter 2 BS explains the
paradigms supported and you can find the modular paradigm on page 26 (2.4).


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Ioannis Vranos:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

Yes C++ is a multiparadigm language and currently supports 4 paradigms.
The procedural paradigm (functions etc), the modular paradigm
(namespaces ), the object oriented paradigm and the generic programming
paradigm (templates). Each paradigm is supported well with optimal space
and time efficiencies.

I didn't know that.

But certainly it's not something everyone agrees on.

For example, I absolutely do not agree that C++ "supports" modular
programming, since there _is_ no module concept in C++. However,
C++ allows you to fake some of it by strictly following some set of
conventions (header file guards etc.). That's in the same spirit
as assembler language supports object-orientation (even old TASM).

I have seen what I said above in TC++PL3 . In chapter 2 BS explains the
paradigms supported and you can find the modular paradigm on page 26 (2.4).

Well I doubt that Bjarne says C++ supports modular programming in a
sense different from OO (e.g. like Modula or Pascal or Ada), but if he
really does then I for one disagree! ;-)

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Ioannis Vranos]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

Well I doubt that Bjarne says C++ supports modular programming in a
sense different from OO (e.g. like Modula or Pascal or Ada), but if he
really does then I for one disagree! ;-)

Have you read the paragraph I provided you? In case you do not have this
book here is how it starts:

[It is placed after the procedural paradigm explanation and the topics
are placed in historical ordering].

"2.4 Modular Programming

Over the years, the emphasis in the design of programs has shifted from
the design of procedures and toward the organization of data. Among
other things, this reflects an increase in program size.

A set of related procedures with the data they manipulate is often
called a module. The programming paradigm becomes:
Decide which modules you want;
partition the program so that data is hidden within modules."

Then it has some more.

Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Ioannis Vranos:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

Well I doubt that Bjarne says C++ supports modular programming in a
sense different from OO (e.g. like Modula or Pascal or Ada), but if he
really does then I for one disagree! ;-)
Have you read the paragraph I provided you?

Nope, cause you didn't provide it... :-)

In case you do not have this book
I don't. I have the first edition, though.

here is how it starts:

[It is placed after the procedural paradigm explanation and the topics
are placed in historical ordering].

"2.4 Modular Programming

Over the years, the emphasis in the design of programs has shifted from
the design of procedures and toward the organization of data. Among
other things, this reflects an increase in program size.

A set of related procedures with the data they manipulate is often
called a module. The programming paradigm becomes:

Decide which modules you want; partition the program so that
data is hidden within modules."

Hum, well, that could refer to just about anything, including OO, and
it doesn't say that C++ supports _whatever_ it is, so as usual I think
Bjarne has not overstated the case, but here is being misinterpreted.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Ioannis Vranos]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

Have you read the paragraph I provided you?

Nope, cause you didn't provide it... :-)

I was talking about this: "In chapter 2 BS explains the paradigms
supported and you can find the modular paradigm on page 26 (2.4)."

"2.4 Modular Programming

Over the years, the emphasis in the design of programs has shifted from
the design of procedures and toward the organization of data. Among
other things, this reflects an increase in program size.

A set of related procedures with the data they manipulate is often
called a module. The programming paradigm becomes:

Decide which modules you want; partition the program so that
data is hidden within modules."

Hum, well, that could refer to just about anything, including OO, and
it doesn't say that C++ supports _whatever_ it is, so as usual I think
Bjarne has not overstated the case, but here is being misinterpreted.

OO paradigm is mentioned later and in this paragraph namespaces are
mentioned for implementing the paradigm:
"
[...]

C++ provides a mechanism for grouping related data, functions, etc.,
into separate namespaces. For example, the user interface of a Stack
module could be declared and used like this:
namespace Stack{ // interface
void push(char) ;
char pop() ;
}
void f()
{
Stack: :push(´c´) ;
if (Stack: :pop() != ´c´) error("impossib le") ;
}
The Stack:: qualification indicates that the push() and pop() are those
from the Stack namespace. Other uses of those names will not interfere
or cause confusion.

The definition of the Stack could be provided in a separately-compiled
part of the program:
namespace Stack{ // implementation
const int max_size = 200;
char v[max_ size] ;
int top = 0;
void push(char c) { /* check for overflow and push c */ }
char pop() { /* check for underflow and pop */ }
}

The key point about this Stack module is that the user code is insulated
from the data representation of Stack by the code implementing
Stack::push() and Stack::pop(). The user doesn’t need to know that the
Stack is implemented using an array, and the implementation can be
changed without affecting user code.
[...]

"

Anyway it is an excellent book and I think every C++ programmer should
buy and *read* it.


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Ioannis Vranos:

Anyway it is an excellent book and I think every C++ programmer should
buy and *read* it.

Yes, I agree.

In fact it's even stronger: if you like the book then you're probably
a good C++ programmer or C++ programmer material, and if not, then
likely not. ;-)

And yes, as shown (I snipped that example) it's possible to implement
Modula/Pascal/Ada-like modules in C++, by use of conventions. Some
features are not possible to implement though. For example, transparent
module initialization requires language _support_. And in a language
with module support you get automatic checking of module dependencies
and such, which must be faked via brittle include guards in C++. Etc.

Cheers,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?