Anonymous user
Talk:Inheritance/Single/C: Difference between revisions
→OO?
No edit summary |
(→OO?) |
||
Line 21:
::: +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)
::: An example based on an existing library would be clearer to most readers. One could then put a link on that example to this one, and state that this one would provide some information about how the libraries are implemented for those with the diligence to wade through considerable code. Truth is, this example will not be useful to most readers, but it may provide some insight to a few of the curious. --[[User:Rldrenth|Rldrenth]] 22:32, 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)
| |||