On 9/23/07, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Object oriented languages creates black boxes: that's the reason why > > object oriented exsists and also the reason why Linus hates it ;-) > > This is just nonsense. This has been proved, though I can't find the > paper about this anymore, than modules (or packages whichever name you > give them) plus abstract types are as good as OO languages at creating > black boxes. I mean it has been proved that it gives the exact same > amount of expressiveness. So please stop with this myth. And don't speak > for people, I would be very surprised that Linus would dislike "black > boxes". Abstractions are good, when used wisely, and I would be much > surprised to see Linus pretend otherwise. > >From a Linus recent thread: > - inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road > you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all > your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you > cannot fix it without rewriting your app. > >In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and >portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are >basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people >don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that >do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any >idiotic "object model" crap. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but the idea I got is that for Linus OO brings in more problems than what it tries to fix. > The real problem with big applications, is not that they are written > with C, C++, D, APL or Perl, but that they are big. I have said exactly this, I don't understand where's your point in repeating the same concept. > C has many many quirks, I don't discuss that, but OO programming > solves none of them, and the problems OO addresses are not the one that > may interfere in the git development. I really don't get how you made up your mind I'm advocating OO ? The only comment I made on OO until now was to highlight one of its downsides. > I mean, the two really interesting > things in OO (that haven't a tremendous cost in return) are member > overloading and inheritance. You have listed two things that are a world apart one from each other. member overload is just syntactic sugar for name mangling, while inheritance and the _strictly_ related virtual member functions (AKA polymorphism) is what opens the gates to all the stuff you have deeply blamed in your post. >I see very few places where git would > benefit from that Instead I see none. But probably you have looked at git code better then me. > Can we go back to git now ? > You are not forced to follow this thread if this bores you. Thanks Marco - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
