Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-04 13:59:20
On 4 June 2010 13:33, Bartlett, Roscoe A <rabartl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Is the C++ boost community really ready to throw away OO programming? Â That just seems crazy to me.
What do you lose by throwing away OO? Objects for the sake of having
objects? RAII is a better OO than OO ever was, since it has a
justification for using objects.
Here's a list of things that OO is sometimes defined to be:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html>. We keep, at least as much as
"OO C++" has them, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. For 4 we have boost::any. We
provide 7 through type erasure layers over 3 (using "OO" features).
We drop 9, but it's a restriction, not a feature.
So what's the big deal?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk