Re: Other programming languages (Was: Command line globber/tokenizer library for C?)

On 13.09.2024 04:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 04:06:58 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
 

On 13.09.2024 00:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:40:17 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>

A lot of early C++ programs I've seen were just, umm, "enhanced" "C"
programs.

>
Given that C++ makes “virtual” optional instead of standard behaviour,
I’d say that C++ is in fact designed to be used that way.

>
There's different semantics with and without a 'virtual' specification.

 
Precisely. And consider what the meaning of a non-virtual destructor is:
it is essentially always the wrong thing to do.

I've used both design patterns depending on what I intended,
so I cannot say that one would be "wrong" in any way.

(Upthread I seem to have rightly sensed that this might lead
to a "right/wrong" ("real" OO) sort of discussion. I abstain.)

Janis