From:	"[taurus AT ptel DOT net]" <taurus AT ptel DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Quake vs. Demos
Date:	Sat, 31 May 1997 15:58:39 -0500
Organization:	MEANS
Lines:	86
Message-ID:	<339090FE.A4C04430@ptel.net>
References:	<199705302154 DOT QAA24261 AT sendit DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu> <19970530 DOT 213927 DOT 7111 DOT 0 DOT fwec AT juno DOT com>
Reply-To:	taurus AT ptel DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Host:	rushford-34.dialup.means.net
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Mark T Logan wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 30 May 1997 16:54:16 -0500 (CDT) Adam W Lee
> <adalee AT sendit DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu> writes:
> >C++ is the embodiment of
> >pretty code, and it sucks.
> 
> C++ does not suck.  It simply is not the ideal language for all
> situations.
> If you try to code a procedure oriented program, such as a game, with it,
> 
> you are cruisin' for a bruisin'.

	I disagree.  There are several reasons to use object oriented languages
in games (though of course not those portions where speed is critical).

>  However, ask any software engineer,
> computer science student, or for that matter a professor, and they will
> tell that C++ and other object oriented languages are indisposable.  You
> see, when a team of twenty people start to work on a massive program,
> a procedure oriented language simply ***will not work***.

 	This is a great argument against massive programs...
> 
> The problem is that the complexity of today's software is too much for
> the
> human mind to comprehend.  With a procedure oriented language, all
> parts of the program are inextricably linked with the rest of the
> program.
> You cannot write one part of the program without understanding the rest
> of
> the program, and that's impossible.
> 
> With an object oriented language, you only have to understand the class
> that you are writing.  

	Once again, I disagree.  This is my main complaint with C++, in that it
encourages you to spew out huge masses of classes, all linked somehow,
with no easy way to tell exactly what a particular class contains, what
it does, or how it does it.  If each class were carefully documented as
it was written, things would be considerably easier, but that's only a
fix for a problem which didn't have to be created.

> The rest of the program is unimportant.  

	What sort of programs do you write?!

> Each class handles
> one task, has its own data members which cannot be accessed by any other
> part of the program.  This allows a team member to write one part of the
> program,
> and integrate it with the rest of the program that has been written by
> someone
> else.
> 
> Of course, C++, IMHO, is not for games, or anything that has to run
> quickly.

	Well, maybe not used the same as in your massive programs.

> With a speed critical app, you have to know every part of your program
> inside
> and out, so that when you start optimizing, you have a clear idea of how
> the
> program works.
> 
> Anyhoo, sorry for writing a novel.

	Don't be.  It was pleasant reading.
> 
> fwec AT juno DOT com


	-Joshua Heyer
	imwho AT juno DOT com

*******************************************************
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for
me!"
		-- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa 1920)
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Egotist, n.:
	A person of low taste, more interested in himself than me.
		-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
*******************************************************

- Raw text -