Valhalla Legends Archive

Programming => General Programming => C/C++ Programming => Topic started by: Arta on June 15, 2005, 06:19 PM

Title: More c++ augmentation...
Post by: Arta on June 15, 2005, 06:19 PM
... but not mine this time: http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/CppInterfaces.asp

This seems silly. Provides no benefit and is confusing. Bourne shell comes to mind. I was going to blog about it and say it has no benefit anyway and is confusing to boot, but I thought I'd see what you lot think before I go out on a limb :)
Title: Re: More c++ augmentation...
Post by: MyndFyre on June 15, 2005, 06:36 PM
I think it's silly.  Interfaces allow an object in OOP languages as if they are derived from multiple base classes.  C++ already supports multiple base classes, and so there's really no need to do that.
Title: Re: More c++ augmentation...
Post by: DarkMinion on June 15, 2005, 07:41 PM
They are trying their very hardest to turn C++ into VB
Title: Re: More c++ augmentation...
Post by: OnlyMeat on June 16, 2005, 03:40 AM
It's just a rip off of MFC type macros. For example MFC has BEGIN_INTERFACE END_INTERFACE COM IUnknown/IDispatch wrappers.

Also it's superflous because COM/CORBA already implements language independent objects/interfaces.
Title: Re: More c++ augmentation...
Post by: MyndFyre on June 16, 2005, 03:44 AM
Quote from: OnlyMeat on June 16, 2005, 03:40 AM
It's just a rip off of MFC type macros. For example MFC has BEGIN_INTERFACE END_INTERFACE COM IUnknown/IDispatch wrappers.

Also it's superflous because COM/CORBA already implements language independent objects/interfaces.

Yeah, but I don't think they're going for language-independence here.  They're just trying to introduce a feature that already exists, with syntax familiar to Java pros.
Title: Re: More c++ augmentation...
Post by: Mephisto on June 16, 2005, 07:33 PM
Quote from: DarkMinion on June 15, 2005, 07:41 PM
They are trying their very hardest to turn C++ into VB

DarkMinion's back and posting his input on things, cool.  :)