posix has been rendered useless, isn't it?

[Alejandro Imass]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh at kathe.in> wrote:

>
> would you be in a position to suggest ways in which one
> could have a c++ program follow unix principles?
> yeah, you could just write a set of tools and utilities
> which can communicate via a text stream and hence can
> be toolchained, but then, c++ ends up becoming nothing
> more than a better c (which is what it was originally
> designed for), i.e. without using a object hierarchy.
>
>
First of all C++ is not a better C is just a different language altogether.
Second principles of OOP have been around for ever and has nothing to do
with language but rather encapsulation and well defined interfaces. I.e.
you don't need an object oriented language to do OOP. Thirdly, OOP is about
code re-use and encapsulation, nothing to do with architectural or
operating system design. I.e. you can use C++ (and in fact MANY Unix
components are built in C++) to create Unix programs and utilities that are
POSIX compliant. By the same token you can do OOP and even a complete OS
with just assembler (e.g. http://www.menuetos.net).

What is the topic of the discussion here? As mentioned earlier in the
thread each problem is dealt with a different set of tools so it all
depends on what you are trying to do; there is no one size fits all. Are
you looking for the perfect, ideal architectural design? for what? in some
cases the OS just gets in the way (e.g. micro-controller applications) and
in other cases applications are built to take full advantage of the
underlying OS. Portability is a myth and write once run anywhere is just
fantasy, not even (or should I say _especially_) with languages like Java.

So again I ask you, what is the topic of discussion here? Scalability,
maintainability, the state of POSIX??? What is the objetive of this
discussion?

Best,

-- 
Alejandro Imass