lololololololol

[Andreas Saurwein]

Yeah, I stumbled across this one too. :-D

---

powerful binary resource reuse - another word for "no sources, you are stuck with a pain-in-the-a## COM component"

[SimonS]

Paul Watson wrote: Scenenews - Paul Is The Devil! (satire)[^] f** you and suck my d*** you rat bastards :omg::wtf: Now if that isn't a good way to sign off a resignation I don't know what is. :~ Cheers, Simon "I ask candidates to create an object model of a chicken.", Bruce Eckel on interviewing programmers. animation mechanics in SVG       (latest pic 1) (latest pic 2)

[Marc Clifton]

Actually, that's a lot less ABSTRACT and conveys more MEANING. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"

[Lost User]

The Beavis and Butthead of the programming world ! Elaine The tigress is here :-D

[Chris Losinger]

sarcasm. -c

---

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

[Bijesh]

>The equivalent for the abstract keyword in VB is MustInherit. I've never heard of an 'abstract' keyword in C++ . and Even in java it doesn't make much sense.. --------------------------------------------------

[Le centriste]

I didn't say it was stupid, I said it was funny ;)

[Le centriste]

In fact, C++ lacks this. What I find funny in VB, is why did they choose such a word. Wouldn't abstract have done the trick? Or are VB developers too far away from OO concepts that they would be completely lost? In fact, I ask myself: Why did they do a language like VB.NET? It is definitely ugly, and C# is far better adapted for that. It looks like MS inspired themselves from Java, which is good. They argue it is to attract VB developers to .NET (and I think the same about managed C++). Do they think that VB developers are too dumb to learn a new language? Anyway, learning VB.NET must be like learning a new language, even to VB developers. At the company where I work, there is a lot of VB developers, and they are learning .NET (and developing small production application) using C#. And they like it! If there is the Inherits keyword in a class declaration, it means that it inherits from another class. If it has MustInherit, does it mean it must absolutely inherit? abstract definitely make more sense to me.

[jan larsen]

Why does it not make much sense in Java?, I use it all the time. By the way, the C++ equivalent of the 'abstract' keyword is making a pure virtual function. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

[Bijesh]

>Why does it not make much sense in Java?, I use it all the >time. Well it doesn't make much sense in Java because it is optional to declare a class as abstract. Whereas a class is implicitly abstract if a method in it is abstract. Which is the same as having a pure virtual function in C++. But, unlike in C++, an abstract function cannot have an implementation in Java. I don't see why that is. Bijesh --------------------------------------------------

[Bijesh]

>Or are VB developers too far away from OO concepts that they would be completely lost? Thats exactly what I thought too. Its like they are trying to provide all the features of an OO language while hiding the concepts. --------------------------------------------------

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Bijesh wrote: Well it doesn't make much sense in Java because it is optional to declare a class as abstract. Whereas a class is implicitly abstract if a method in it is abstract. The difference is that you can make a class complete and mark it as abstract. The usefulness of it? I don't know.. I guess it's a nice way to show the programmer that a particular class should be inherited and specialized in some way, while still providing default implementations. I can see this useful for the template pattern as defined by Gamma et al. -- Say it darling Doesn’t seem like you want that kind of honey, honey

[Christian Graus]

I presumed you were being sarcastic about the *absence* of templates, hence my pointing out their impending arrival. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma

[Le centriste]

It is a joke in itself

[Bijesh]

>I guess it's a nice way to show the programmer that a particular class should be inherited and specialized in some >way, while still providing default implementations. I can see this useful for the template pattern as defined by Gamma et al. --- But you could still inherit from the complete class and instantiate it without overriding anything. The concept of 'Must Inherit' only happens when there are methods which need to be implemented ( like in the template pattern). And this is specified more accurately by pure virtual functions. I feel that a class-wide 'abstract' or 'MustInherit' keyword doesn't encourage good programming. Anyway I feel we're just splitting hairs :-D --------------------------------------------------

[jan larsen]

Bijesh wrote: Well it doesn't make much sense in Java because it is optional to declare a class as abstract. Whereas a class is implicitly abstract if a method in it is abstract. That is not true, if you declare an abstract method inside a Java class, you MUST declare the class abstract as well. This makes it much more clear to the user that the class was meant as an abstract implementation compared to the implicit abstractness defined by one or more pure virtual functions in C++. Bijesh wrote: Which is the same as having a pure virtual function in C++. But, unlike in C++, an abstract function cannot have an implementation in Java. I don't see why that is. :wtf: But, but, but that is EXACTLY the purpose of an abstract method!..., it is not implemented, as opposed to a NON abstract method... And by the way a pure virtual function in C++ can't have an implementation either, so why the 'unlike in C++'? I guess a simple example is required:

/**
* The parent class for shapes like cubes and triangles.
*/
public abstract class Shape extends Object
{
/** The upper left corner of the bounding rectangle for the shape. */
protected Point upperLeftCornerOfBounds;

/**
* @return The upper left corner of the bounding rectangle for the shape.
*/
public Point getUpperLeftCorner()
{
return upperLeftCornerOfBounds;
}

/**
* Implementing classes must paint themselves when this method is invoked.
* @param g The graphics context.
*/
public abstract void paint(Graphics g);
}

The Shape class contains a member variable that is shared by every implementation, but how a shape is painted is individual, therefore the method is declared abstract. The class that needs to paint shapes does not need to know Triangle or Cube, if it has a reference to a Shape object, then it knows it can safely invoke paint(). This is basic stuff... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

[Bijesh]

I'm sorry but you're wrong 1) In Java You need not declare a class as abstract if a method is abstract. ( But they recommend that you do.. for better readability) 2) Pure virtual functions in C++ CAN have an implementation. Try it if you're not sure. I am quite familiar with polymorphism, there was no need for that example. Bijesh --------------------------------------------------

[realJSOP]

No, but C++ does a pretty fuckin good job of keeping the VB bozos occupied with their scrotums instead of trying to become real programmers... ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends

[jan larsen]

Bijesh wrote: 1) In Java You need not declare a class as abstract if a method is abstract. ( But they recommend that you do.. for better readability) Please, i have been a Java consultant for years: http://www7b.boulder.ibm.com/vajdoc/vahwebx.exe/en_US/vj32/Extract/0/ide/ref/rikabstr.htm[^] Bijesh wrote: 2) Pure virtual functions in C++ CAN have an implementation. Try it if you're not sure. I really don't want to try, why allow a pure virtual function to be implemented?! : http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~leavens/larchc++manual/lcpp_150.html[^] Please read the specifications when in doubt... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

[Bijesh]

I think you misread what I wrote about the first point and you are wrong about the second one ( or your source is wrong) 2) Pure virtual functions.. see: http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/ANSI-cpp-dec96/derived.asp#class.virtual quote:" A pure virtual function need be defined only if explicitly called with the qualified-id syntax " i.e you need to define a pure virtual function if you are calling it with a scope resolution operator. This is significant when using RTTI on abstract classes. e.g: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Programming_Languages/Cplusplus/Q_10110751.html 1) abstract keyword: What I meant was that in Java you need not explicitly use the 'abstract' keyword on a class. It is optional. Sorry if I offended you but I won't be arguing this any longer. thanks, Bijesh --------------------------------------------------