[Shootout-list] Re: OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Brent Fulgham wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > It is not fine.  There is no such widespread OO system for C.  The
> > overwhelming majority of people do not use C this way.
>
> The GTK toolkit uses exactly this model.  They wrote their own object
> hierarchy in C.

I'll repeat: the overwhelming majority of people do not use C this way.
Compared to all C users, GTK is a little teeny tiny blip on the radar.
Its object system is not a predominant C object system.  There's a
difference between an OO widget API and an OO *language*.  OO widget
APIs only facilitate the writing of additional widgets.  I'm using the
word 'facilitate' quite generously here.

> Ummmm.  Wonkish.
>
> I just don't take the view that a language must receive some kind of
> legal writ stating that it is "heretofore and forevermore included in
> the loving brotherhood of OO languages".

Well, your view is quite a minority view.  Almost nobody else out there
is having a debate about whether C is an OO language or not.

> OO is a tool, and just like
> the cargo cults in the south pacific crafted simulacra of aircraft out
> of branches and bamboo, some enterprising C programmer might
> decide to craft a partial object system out of structs and pointers.

Why should we be wasting our time with such a person?  Their OO system
is not going to work in general.  It's not going to have received
testing from a wide audience.

> Sure, an airplane made of bamboo and leaves will (probably)
> not fly, but it
> served the particular purpose of it users.  Similarly, a
> partial object system
> might be sufficient for the needs of a C programmer -- in
> this case, for the shootout.

What do you see as the goal for the shootout?  Trying anything and
everything, no matter how brain dead?

> We can similarly make a "Least-Common-Denominator" page to meet
> Brandon's goals.

I'm getting tired of all the various goals, honestly.  I don't really
believe that anyone's going to put any energy at all into *my* goals.
People's energies are focused on things I either don't care about or
think are downright stupid.  In particular, I really hate the "let's
include everything!" discussions.  It leads to kitchen sink design.

It's time for me to bow out of this project / discussion.  It's not
meeting any of my strategic goals, and I have a lot of work pressure
now.  If I need a benchmark to fulfil various goals someday, I'm sure I
will be far better off ignoring other people and doing what I think is
best.

Bengt, I will continue to talk privately with you about timer issues, if
you so choose.  But this ends my general list involvement with the
Shootout.  No hard feelings.  Participating has helped me refine my
goals.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                          - anonymous entrepreneur