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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk