Re: [boost] Classpath to C++ conversion

From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-31 07:06:55

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:54:34PM +0530, Tushar wrote:

> > Agreed.  STL not being (entirely) OO is not a problem in any way.
> It is. It makes it difficult to document/design things with UML and
> related documentation tools like doxygen or javadoc

Huh??? I use Doxygen every day with code that isn't object-obsessed.

I wrote the doxygen docs for parts of GCC's STL, and found absolutely
no problems describing the contents of <algorithm> using Doxygen.

Why do your UML designs need to care about STL algorithms?  Can't you
specify the design in terms of "copy this object" so you don't care
whether the copy is done using a member function or not?

If your tools don't support modern C++, change your tools, not the
language.  IMHO implementing the Java API in C++ is a bad idea.

This awful HOWTO made the same mistake of trying to make C++ more like
Java:
http://oopweb.com/CPP/Documents/CPPHOWTO/Volume/C++Programming-HOWTO.html
And there's a reason myself and others convinced the Linux Documentation
Project to do this: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/C++Programming-HOWTO.html

jon