[gameprogrammer] Re: "Mission Efficiency" - Blue Collar coding

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:47:18AM -0400, grant hallman wrote:

> Well, less than what? I was told OO would allow software tools to be
> arranged in a heirarchical library, and used for many different apps.
> Except i'd been doing that for 20 years before meeting OO. I haven't seen
> every possible example, but most OO code i see has the A-level code chopped
> into so many small pieces, and each piece embedded between layers of
> C-level stuff, that understanding it is like trying to rebuild a cow from
> so many hamburgers.

Hmmm ... I'm not sure I understand ... would you like it more lumped all
together?

Yes, OOP tends to result in more smaller structs (classes) and functions
(methods) but that's actually good.  Sure, it's possible to overdo it.

> And everything wants constructors, destructors, and other distractions
> which may be logically required by the language, but certainly not by
> the application. 

Constructors and destructors are by no means a distraction, I'm sorry.
When you declare a pointer, don't you set it to NULL right away?  If you
don't then you definitely should.  If you do, why does it bother you to
put it in a constructor once for all and have it executed automatically
every time you instantiate a variable?

I'm not going into explaining the role of destructors in preventing
memory leaks etc. since that stuff is painfully obvious.  Instead, I'd
say that in the process of fighting the OOP religion you seem to promote
another religion - this time the anti-OOP one.

        latimerius



---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: