[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]random question

From: j_post
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]random question
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 06:59:57 -0800

On Saturday 08 February 2003 12:33 am, you wrote:
> contribute anything against that.  Do you think that you can write
> "logical" programs in C because Prolog compilers compile down to C?

Yes. It might be a royal pain in the @ss, but it could be done if someone 
were willing to put up with the tedium.
> And so what if C++ source is translated to C source?  Are you saying
> that Intel ASM is "OOP" because Java code eventually ends up as Intel
> ASM?

I'm saying that any paradigm can be implemented in any (Turing complete) 
language, just as the idea in this sentence can be expressed in English, 
German, or Swahili. It may not be easy, but it can be done. (I'd *really* 
like to see a Pascal compiler written in Brainfuck ;-) (Hey, Gopal, wanna 
volunteer to do that?:)
> I personally don't think C is suitable for OOP.
I agree! I didn't say C was suitable for OOP, I said it's possible to do OOP 
in C. In fact it was done in C at one time, and C++ was invented to make it 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]