|
Don't take my word for it. Here's a ton of detail why it's not.
https://www.stroustrup.com/oopsla.pdf[^]
The takeway is you can do classes and objects with C++. It's so flexible you can do procedural too.
But you can do generic programming and in C++ that's the preferred method for abstracting and composing functionality.
That's also how the language - most specifically the STL was designed.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
No, no, that is like the current president in US. Explain it or you fail 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Chemists have exactly one rule: there are only exceptions
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I just thought you wanted an answer, not my answer. I figured I'd give you the "official" position.
I edited my post since you responded. Maybe it will be more to your liking.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Don't take me too serious. Anyway I will check what you modified.
Only my thoughts, c++
I like to have the possibilty/need to implement a copy and assignment op. Compared to the hell in c# with it's deep copy hell. Of course yes, also in c++ using pointers it can end in the same.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Chemists have exactly one rule: there are only exceptions
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish newer C++ would provide an auto member-wise copy constructor if you explicitly asked for it. I don't know what that would look like though.
foo(const foo& rhs) auto;
or something
One thing that's nice about C# is it does that for you. True if you're not used to it, ICloneable seems awkward but everything in the CLI/CLR including foreach enumerability is exposed through interfaces so it makes sense. At best C# could have added a language feature (syntactic sugar) to wrap it.
Personally I find ICloneable intuitive after a learning curve, which is better than say, SQL.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
foo(const foo& that) = default;
subject to some restrictions that make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah something like that.
I just wish there was a way to do unions whose members had nontrivial albeit zero argument constructors but I understand why there's not. It would just be so convenient.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
What's this with ICloneable?
It adds a Copy function which you have to implement yourself.
Whether that's a shallow or deep copy or anything in between is up to the implementer.
Microsoft advices against the use of ICloneable (in public APIs) as it doesn't do anything and rolling out your own IDeepCloneable and/or IShallowCloneable would be more clear.
From the docs[^]: "Because callers of Clone() cannot depend on the method performing a predictable cloning operation, we recommend that ICloneable not be implemented in public APIs."
Maybe you're talking about Object.MemberwiseClone Method (System) | Microsoft Docs[^] (which returns a shallow copy)?
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I wasn't aware of that fine print.
Well I always do implement my ICloneable as private and implement an ICloneable<T> type instead which (in my code) is always a deep copy. And "clone" really should imply that anyway.
And technically, what actually constitutes a "deep" copy is always up to the caller anyway. Some fields in a deep copy may indeed be shallow copied, like if the object uses string pooling or something, and I find Microsoft's docs to be characteristically trite on such matters.
Frankly, I know if I call ICloneable<t> I'm getting the counterpart to MemberwiseClone. That implies a deep copy. And as I said, what that is is always up to the caller in the end anyway. What's expected is a "copy" of the object, but again, when you throw things like pooling into the mix, what that means might be different than what you expect.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that was some advance stuff here  I'm not there yet, but will keep it in my head. I will surely have good use of that knowledge if I advance to that level someday 
modified 3-Jun-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's problem for me with those modern languages that I'm still learning and they do stuff for me. At my college we are not allowed to use libraries that's why it's a blessing to read c++ books because they teach how to do stuff from scratch. I need that for my school  Of course if I start working as a professional I will be gladluy using those libraries, but today they are not so helpful because I'm not allowed to use them anyway so they just make me confused 
modified 3-Jun-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
well if you're using C++ appropriately there's some amount of "libraries" that are part of the language and that mess is known as The Standard Template Library or The STL.
It contains things like std::string, std::map, and std::vector which you should really be using rather than rolling your own.
I say they are part of the language because, while not tightly integrated like VBs runtimes for example, they were designed with and to be used as part of programming in C++
I look at it this way. C++ is the language + the STL. The reason they aren't all rolled together is so you can modify it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah that I can use  At my college we can only use some basic Java libraries thatprovides for example String, equals and so on but Collections like arraylists and algorithms are totaly forbidden so I'm glad I could learn how to make some of those forbidden stuff from scratch by reading c++ books.
modified 3-Jun-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
C++ has a ton of "collections" built into the STL. They're called containers though, but it's the same thing. Way more than Java or C# in fact. C++ has one of the best container packages I've seen for an imperative language.
Those books should be teaching you those. Hopefully your professors get around to it too because if you don't know them, you don't know C++.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I only learn Java and PHP at my collegaue. I started to learn C++ on my own, because I wanted to read c++ books because they were more interesting. But still... Java relies mostly on libraries... but we are not allowed to use them. I mean most of them. Only arrays, scanner you get what I mean and of course GUI  They want us to do all the algorithms from scratch, even in whole applications. Maybe they want to train our brains to be better programmers that way...
modified 3-Jun-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm... intereesting. I thought it was all about OOP because I program in that way in C++ but I have background in java. Maybe that's why.
modified 3-Jun-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That's probably why. Buy Accelerated C++. You'll be glad you did. It will make you a better coder. It did me!
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
When I have more free time in future I will surely read it  Thank's. I love to read good books 
modified 3-Jun-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Because you can quite easily write a procedural program in C++. With real OOP languages (Java, C# etc.) you cannot do anything without creating a class first.
|
|
|
|
|
Only because 'one can do it' is not really an explanation. In c++ you can do things like "#define private public" in .net you can access everything using reflection.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Chemists have exactly one rule: there are only exceptions
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
No, that is the whole point. A proper OOP language begins with the class, and everything proceeds from there. Without the class nothing will work. In C++ the class is just an extra that you can use or not as you like. So you can write C++ code that conforms (more or less) to the rules of OOP, but you can also just ignore them.
As an example:
class Mainclass
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
return 0;
}
|
|
|
|
|
No and no and no, all this _is_ _not_ the defintion of a proper OOP language. Even in ada (which is for me the OOP reference) you can do dirty things 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Chemists have exactly one rule: there are only exceptions
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Then it is not OOP. Either the language follows the rules completely or it does not.
|
|
|
|
|
This is now a valid C# program:
using System;
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
Espen Harlinn
Senior Architect - Ulriken Consulting AS
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.Edsger W.Dijkstra
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
But for me it would be better that in case a copy constructor should be implemented explicitely. Ok, probably about 75% of my code would not compile anymore because I went the lazy way 
about me 
