Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/14/20:13:06
In comp.os.msdos.djgpp, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>>I suspect the need now is for Allegro to go OO. Yep, Object-oriented, C++.
To which Shawn Hargreaves responded:
>I beg to differ. You are equating a design methodology with a
>programming language, but the two are really quite different things. You
>can write object oriented code in any language, just as you can write
>straight procedural code in C++...
Well said.
[snip]
>But maybe most importantly, is Allegro not already quite object oriented
>enough?
Just to expand on this point a little, I found it incredibly easy to wrap the
Allegro API up into a fairly clean OO class structure, primarily due to Shawn's
well planned design.
My point being, if you want an Allegro for C++, why not just wrap up the C
functionality into C++ classes, and then use those instead? That way people
who want to code in C can, and those who want to code in C++ can as well. In
fact, Paul, since you sound so keen on the idea, I vote for you as the person
to do it!
Since Shawn tries damn hard not to change the API, you're pretty much
guaranteed that your code will survive multiple releases of Allegro without
breaking.
To get you started, you might consider taking a look at the Eiffel wrapper to
see one possible way of "class"ifying Allegro. It's not necessarily the best
way to partition the functionality, but it should give you some ideas of what
is possible.
Cheers,
Peter
PS. Anyone who wishes to reply to this message should use the address in my
signature. I'm currently using Lotus Notes as an e-mailer, and it has big
problems with Internet mail addresses (ie. my reply address has probably been
munged). Replying to the ng will also get to me (I'm on the mailing list).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Monks http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/4455/
pmonks AT iname DOT com
Peter_Monks AT australia DOT notes DOT pw DOT com
- Raw text -