Author | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
Arta | ... 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 :) | June 15, 2005, 11:19 PM |
Myndfyr | 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. | June 15, 2005, 11:36 PM |
DarkMinion | They are trying their very hardest to turn C++ into VB | June 16, 2005, 12:41 AM |
OnlyMeat | 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. | June 16, 2005, 8:40 AM |
Myndfyr | [quote author=OnlyMeat link=topic=11845.msg115996#msg115996 date=1118911243] 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. [/quote] 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. | June 16, 2005, 8:44 AM |
Mephisto | [quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=11845.msg115934#msg115934 date=1118882474] They are trying their very hardest to turn C++ into VB [/quote] DarkMinion's back and posting his input on things, cool. :) | June 17, 2005, 12:33 AM |