Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : BORL: Time to BUY! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kashish King who wrote (7168)	11/6/1997 12:18:00 PM
From: david thor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

< Microsoft has focused on Visual Basic and intentionally not offered a simple interactive C++ system and they certainly could have done so.> Rod, You don't feel that Visual C++ 5.0 meets your requirements? Dave

To: Kashish King who wrote (7168)	11/6/1997 12:21:00 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Zinc and others made an attempt but looking at their implementation and their code it was obvious that the suffered from the same fate as many Microsoft products: the developers displayed an almost total lack of design skills and little if any understanding of OOP and/or C++ programming patterns -- usually and Rod, I haven't looked at Zinc in a few years. But when I last worked with it, it was pushing object oriented design with c++ to its limits. I do not believe a more OO implementation is possible, without moving to a different language. The Zinc library was well designed, even if overly complex, and utitlized extensively the principles of good OO design. Where you got your information I don't know. Perhaps the package has degenerated over the years, but that seems unlikely. Just curious; what is the basis for your statement regarding Zinc?