Talk:Inheritance/Single/C: Difference between revisions
→OO?: Add, not replace.
No edit summary |
(→OO?: Add, not replace.) |
||
Line 20:
:: That would probably be a good Idea. With what's here, the main purpose gets rather lost in the haystack.--[[User:Rldrenth|Rldrenth]] 13:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
::: +1 --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:: I would argue against replacing the example wholesale, but I wouldn't mind seeing an additional example using the glibc library. It becomes a comparison of "roll-your-own" versus using a library. ''Eventually'', changes the site's organization (and, likely, software) will make multiple side-by-side examples in the same language less clunky. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:You'd be amazed at how many object systems have been implemented in C and other mostly procedural languages. OO is a useful enough design pattern that whole languages have been built around it, after all. In C, the implementer gets to choose ''how'' to implement it, instead of relying on the particular implementation built into the language. That's one reason we have Objective-C vs. C++. For example, the OO system built into the heart of Unix; what else is a device but a couple of classes (character, block) designed to be polymorphic on the open/close/read/write/ioctl interface, implemented as a couple big vtables? Most of the ad-hoc OO systems I've seen don't have general inheritance, relying instead on explicit delegation. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
| |||