Object-oriented Programming with ANSI-C (1993) [pdf]

Re:Object-oriented Programming with ANSI-C (1993) [pdf] by JohnFen on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @06:45PM (#36425731)

I'm doing OOP in C right now in my work. I'm porting a C++ program to a new platform and, for reasons, the most feasible language to use for it is C.

Re-engineering the code to be not object oriented is not practical, so we're keeping its OO nature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Object-oriented Programming with ANSI-C (1993) [pdf] by proxyon on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @10:10PM (#36427226)

What's the point of refactoring C++ to C? That sounds weird and regressive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Object-oriented Programming with ANSI-C (1993) [pdf] by acuozzo on Thursday June 22, 2023 @02:23AM (#36428603)

No C++ compiler for the target architecture?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Object-oriented Programming with ANSI-C (1993) [pdf] by JohnFen on Thursday June 22, 2023 @11:01AM (#36433185)

For subtle technical reasons relating to the toolchain, it's not possible to use C++ for this platform.

Well, it is possible, but it would easily take four times the amount of time it would take to port the C++ code to C. So porting makes the most sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Object-oriented Programming with ANSI-C (1993) [pdf] by gyrovorbis on Friday June 23, 2023 @01:41AM (#36443225)

There are a few niche reasons. The entire GNOME/GTk stack benefits greatly in the realm of language interop from being C at its core. This is why it easily has bindings to every language ever.

[ Parent | on HN ]