Re: docs (OE,Phix) // ? benefits of OOP but simpler
- Posted by _tom (admin) Dec 13, 2016
- 1773 views
Long ago someone complained that Euphoria used "object" everywhere but there was no OOP to be found.
What if?
- OE had dot notation
- OE had a trivial way use identifiers to index a sequence
We do have:
- the pre-processor, which would start working if all routines had arguments arranged in a consistent and sensible fashion.
- the idea of using enum to create constants for indexing fails because I want to use "x" in different ways for different sequences
That suggests that Euphoria with some OOP eye-candy is all that is needed to become a hipster programming language.
Pure OOP languages say that all objects are derived one one fundamental object; you then end up with many objects. I am tempted to say that Euphoria has one object; you do not need many objects.
The fancy features of OOP add more typing and complexity--Euphoria gets the advantage here.
The trick is how to describe the situation to someone who has years of conditioning in the OOP way.
As it stands "benefits of OOP but simpler" is too glib. I just have not yet found a concise way to make the case for Euphoria vs OOP.
_tom
