In article <3c4f050d@news.povray.org>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

> I didn't run or compile it, I just looked at the code.  I have to say it is
> nicely formatted and good to read.  Of course some comments would help
> others to understand, but nevertheless, your code is still fairly clear and
> in parts seems like "Java style" to me (I don't know why, and it is meant
> positive).

Good to hear...I was afraid it would be an unreadable mess to anyone 
else. ;-)
Java style? Hmm...I have "learned" the Java language, but never bothered 
to learn the API, and I haven't done anything in it. Maybe it comes from 
my working with Objective C...I've heard both were inspired partly by 
Smalltalk. Or do you mean all the inline functions in the headers? That 
was just lazyness.
BTW, now that I've done some stuff in Objective C and am back working in 
C++, I'm beginning to see why people complain about the way C++ does OOP.
I'm constantly wrestling with it, trying to get it to do things that 
should be very simple with OOP, but have to be worked around because C++ 
isn't dynamic enough. Still better than raw C, though...
Probably too soon to ask, but what do you think of the CSDL language 
itself? Do you know of any other languages that use this concept of OOP?


> However, there is one thing you should really start adding soon:
> try-catch blocks.  As it stands your program will just terminate if it runs
> out of memory...

Error handling is definitely something I need to work on...I've never 
used exceptions before, and I've been putting it off. Right now I'm 
mainly working on plugging memory leaks...there's a lot of them, mainly 
due to a lot of the code being stubbed out or simply not implemented.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message