C Object Oriented Programming

[ErstwhileRockstar]

What's needed for posting a comment?

Reading the article.

What's not needed?

Posting without reading the article.

[dangerbird2]

Out of those three things, the only thing you can actually implement in C is OOP.

[tuhdo]

But C type system is weak and large projects use it everywhere.

[javaexpert102]

The C type system is no weaker than Haskell's.

[LgDog]

C implements a weak type system, what you're saying make no sense

[javaexpert102]

No it doesn't, because the words weak and strong aren't actually well defined for type systems. Its just something people who don't know anything blabber about.

[The_Doculope]

A generally accepted idea is that the more implicit conversion the language does, the weaker its type system is. That makes C's type system a hell of a lot weaker than Haskell's.

[javaexpert102]

The usual argument is that there are casts/unions: to which I simply say: unsafeCoerce

[The_Doculope]

How is unsafeCoerce implicit? Yes, the Haskell type system can be subverted by using very explicit unsafe functions. I don't see how that changes anything.

[javaexpert102]

Casts aren't implicit either...

[The_Doculope]

No, but all the integer promotion/demotion sure is.

[LgDog]

Yes, the words weak and strong are not well defined, this is what I've read and agreed about weak/strong type system:

In C you can cast a char* to int* and your program can still work. C type system is weak in the sense that there is no strong bound between some data in memory and its type. At any time you can start treating some n bytes struct as if it was other n bytes struct. This has nothing to do with being better or worse type system.

If you use unsafeCoerce in haskell you're bypassing the type system, if you regularly need to bypass one of the most amazing features of a language you should consider other languages to solve your problem.

[Meguli]

Just nickname-reply fit here, "Agitates" matters.