[LUGSB] Meeting Today @ 6:45

[Vinay Pai]

> I'd like to see your C library that does OOP. It will not be as good as
> say, CLOS. CLOS isn't Scheme, of course -- but it would be possible to
> write a CLOS work-alike in Scheme.

Let me jump into the fray here... a lot of early C++ compilers were really
C++ to C translators. So that takes care of implementing OO with C.

Or were you doubting Sean's programming skills?
>From mgraffam at mathlab.sunysb.edu Sat Apr  3 04:04:15 2004
Received: from SunRa.mathlab.sunysb.edu (SunRa.mathlab.sunysb.edu
	[129.49.17.48])i3394FiK017449
	for <lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 04:04:15 -0500
Received: from SunRa.mathlab.sunysb.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	i3394EWO000358
	for <lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 04:04:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (mgraffam at localhost)i3394EQx000355
	for <lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 04:04:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: SunRa.mathlab.sunysb.edu: mgraffam owned process
	doing -bs
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 04:04:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Graffam <mgraffam at mathlab.sunysb.edu>
To: Linux Users Group at Stony Brook <lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [LUGSB] Meeting Today @ 6:45
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0404030258230.13881 at linux11>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0404030338380.29164-100000 at SunRa.mathlab.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-BeenThere: lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Linux Users Group at Stony Brook <lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
List-Id: Linux Users Group at Stony Brook <lugsb.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/lugsb>,
	<mailto:lugsb-request at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/lugsb>
List-Post: <mailto:lugsb at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
List-Help: <mailto:lugsb-request at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/lugsb>,
	<mailto:lugsb-request at fsl.cs.sunysb.edu?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 09:04:15 -0000



On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Vinay Pai wrote:

> > I'd like to see your C library that does OOP. It will not be as good as
> > say, CLOS. CLOS isn't Scheme, of course -- but it would be possible to
> > write a CLOS work-alike in Scheme.
>
> Let me jump into the fray here... a lot of early C++ compilers were really
> C++ to C translators. So that takes care of implementing OO with C.
>
Of course you can translate C++ to C. You can convert Matlab to C, C++
or Lisp -- or any other language. This implies nothing about C, C++, or
Lisp's support for vectorized programming techniques versus Matlab's
vector techniques though.

Neither does a C++ to C translator imply anything about C's support for
OOP techniques.

> Or were you doubting Sean's programming skills?

No, I'm sure it would be quite easy to kludge together a basic object
system for C. I don't think that OOP could be DONE WELL in C -- no matter
the programming talent. C is not designed for it, and the kludge known
as C++ is -- well -- a kludge.