From shenkin@still3.chem.columbia.edu Thu Jul 24 16:19:48 1997 Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu for shenkin@still3.chem.columbia.edu by www.ccl.net (8.8.3/950822.1) id PAA28011; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from still3.chem.columbia.edu (still3.chem.columbia.edu [128.59.112.36]) by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA14024 for <@smtp.columbia.edu:CHEMISTRY@www.ccl.net>; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by still3.chem.columbia.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/930416.SGI.AUTO) for CHEMISTRY@www.ccl.net id PAA14630; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:48:49 -0400 From: "Peter Shenkin" Message-Id: <9707241548.ZM14628@still3.chem.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:48:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Smith JA (Jack)" "RE: Object-oriented means for computational chemist" (Jul 24, 2:27pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: "'CHEMISTRY@www.ccl.net'" Subject: Re: Object-oriented means for computational chemist Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 24, 2:27pm, Smith JA (Jack) wrote: > Peter Shenkin[SMTP:shenkin@still3.chem.columbia.edu] wrote: > >All this is true. However, there's another side to the coin. Using > >non-OO languages, like C and Fortran, one can assemble abstracted and > >encapsulated libraries that can be called from a wide variety of > >languages: C, C++, F77, F90, .... It's true that you don't get > >inheritance if you do this. > > > >On the other hand, using C++, it's not possible to write a > >general-purpose library callable from other languages... > >Or so I'm told by those more conversant in C++ than I. > And now we're back to the mixed language debate > I find little problem with > maintaining the overall system architecture and handling the user > interface with a good application C++ class library, writing reusable > non-computational 'modules' in plain C, and making use of (and even > extending) existing FORTRAN libraries and program segments for the bulk > of the computational work. Your point is well taken, and I don't disagree. On the other hand, that's not quite the issue I was trying to raise. The issue I was trying to raise is that regardless of whether one wants to write the front end in C, C++ or Fortran, or anything else, the language definition of C++ *precludes* writing a linkable code libraries in C++ if one ever wants to access the library routines from another language. This is really too bad, because, whether it's optimal right now or not, OO techniques, including inheritance, are not inherently ill-suited for efficient computational methods and even offer some advantages. I'd love to be able to write some of these underlying libraries in C++, but right now I cannot, because I don't feel that I can tie the *users* of the libraries -- who may not be limited to me -- to C++ exclusively. -P. -- **** "Deep Blue can't triumph in the game of life." (NY Times, 5/13/97) *** * Peter S. Shenkin; Chemistry, Columbia U.; 3000 Broadway, Mail Code 3153 * ** NY, NY 10027; shenkin@columbia.edu; (212)854-5143; FAX: 678-9039 *** *MacroModel WWW page: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/mmod/mmod.html *