From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5222 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2010 02:08:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 5204 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2010 02:08:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:07:58 +0000 Received: by iwn35 with SMTP id 35so706580iwn.0 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:07:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.149.12 with SMTP id r12mr444089ibv.57.1276826876138; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.145.72 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:07:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C19D22A.3090703@adacore.com> References: <20100616134202.GA32490@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100616163732.GC2700@adacore.com> <4C19D22A.3090703@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why isn't GDB designed and implemented by using Object-Oriented methodology? From: xingxing pan To: Robert Dewar Cc: Joel Brobecker , Jan Kratochvil , gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00067.txt.bz2 Actually, what I want to say is that coding is different from design. 2010/6/17 Robert Dewar : > 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 =A0methodology? >>> >>> See the last discussion: >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Move GDB to C++ ? >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-07/msg00077.html >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://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 =3D > abstract data type. >