Yes, there is such a thing as 'good' object-oriented programming.
In short, the object should be considered as true objects and what
you can do with them is defined through, and only through, the public or
protected functions. Practically all interaction with an instance of an
object should be done through a function.
C++ doesn't invite to good object-oriented programming in the same way as Java does. Programmers schooled in C programming often have difficulties to adapt to object-oriented programming and think in terms of objects.
Sorry for this short disturbance in the archive, but I do feel the lack of a coding style document for ns. :-)
Lloyd Wood wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Håkan Byström wrote:> It's only the result of inconsistent coding style and bad object-oriented
> programming.funny, that. I don't think I've ever encountered *good*
object-oriented programming.L.
is it possible?
<[email protected]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
-- Håkan Byström, Operax +46 920 755 07, office +46 70 374 03 24, cellular