Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> You can definitely benefit from the "OOP in C" approach.
>
> Recently I had to do some small modifications on a project that was done
> "OOP in asm". All variables resided in objects, and pointers to those
> objects were passed around. The silly thing was that there was only one
> instance of each object... Maybe worse was that there were almost no
> comments (and little other documentation), and half of it was subtly out
> of phase with the code.
>
> So maybe there is a place for "OOP in XXX" (where XXX is a non-OOP
> language) but it raises the possibilities for horrible code to a next 
> level.

You may remember when I first started looking into OOP for C, Xiaofan 
suggested a couple of articles where the authors were emulating C++ in C. 
IMO their implementations are a huge overkill, and I would have probably 
failed miserably if I followed in their footsteps, because I'm not 1/10 as 
good a programmer as they are.

Luckily, an author of a book on patterns suggested, "favor aggregation over 
inheritance". If you don't use inheritance in your code, the task of 
emulating OOP in a procedural language is greatly simplified, and you still 
get 90% of the benefits.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist