From: Andreas Pokorny (andreas.pokorny_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-24 14:36:03
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:14:57PM +0530, Tushar <tushar_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am thinking of converting GNU Classpath used for GCJ to C++. I have
> following reasons about why to do this.
The Classpath in C++ would be the runtime linker path, and a mapping of
namespaces onto directories? How would one implement such a concept, and
for what use?
Or is the classpath the whole library api?
> 1. C++ requires a Good OOPs library with well defined api. Java has that
> . While C++ also have many of them, most do not look truly object
> oriented.
Could you elaborate "Good OOPs"?
Do you think that only object oriented librarys are good enough?
> 2.C++ has much of the libs using STL. The only problem is STL is not a
> object oriented.
Where is the problem? Containers are object, algorithms are not. Looks
perfectly good to me.
> (See STL Tutorial and reference) This really makes it
> difficult to think in OO and implement in STL. Particularly in STL,
> T a,b
> T a=b means a is separate entity and same for b. This make problem in
> many case where one wants just pointer e.g File handling and
> manipulation of large buffer.
Where is the relation between value/pointer/reference semantic, and oop?
Btw, you need to understand language semantics before implementing
anything in that language.
> My idea is that API specification is already defined for java. And it
> seems much complete.I mean to say more complete then if start deciding
> from scratch -:). Why not to use java then?
I doubt that reusing the design makes much sense, because it was designed
for a different language, a language without templates, without references,
multiple inheritance, without operators and without destructors. Thus there
are lots of things that can be handled nicer.
> Difference bet proposed C++ and Java
> 1.Everything is a pointer other them simple atomic data types.(Same)
References are helpful, try to implement a swap without references. Why
should you prune C++ here?
> 4.Every thing is subclass of Object(Same).
Why should one pay for a deep hierarchy that is never used? You should
ask yourself why java needs to have that common base class.
Regards
Andreas Pokorny