From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17726 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2010 07:43:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 17716 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2010 07:43:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:43:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5662BABC3; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8U5wNySSKUIu; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22ADD2BABBE; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C19D22A.3090703@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:43:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Jan Kratochvil , xingxing pan , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Why isn't GDB designed and implemented by using Object-Oriented methodology? References: <20100616134202.GA32490@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100616163732.GC2700@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100616163732.GC2700@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> When meeting so many structs and function pointer in the source codes, >>> dose anyone have the thought to redesign and implement GDB using >>> Object-Oriented methodology? >> See the last discussion: >> Move GDB to C++ ? >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-07/msg00077.html >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-08/msg00004.html > > One can develop software using "Object Oriented *methodology*" without > using a language that implements classes. An object is, at its simplest, > data and methods. Interesting to see this definition take hold, very different from the classical (e.g. Simula) view of objects. To me data+methods = abstract data type.