1. Re: OOP in "official" Euphoria
David... I didn't write any of those things. The quotes you allude to are
from a mailing list item from Mike Nelson on 07/05/99 as follows:
Mike Nelson wrote:
Rob writes that incorporating OOP into Euphoria is not a high priority with
him. As one of the many who is working in this area, I agree with him! The
various OOP systems under development have different purposes--different
strengths and weaknesses. I love the freedom to use any I find useful and
to write my own or modify someone else's as I see fit. Even more, I love
the freedom to not use OOP--and have the overhead of an OOP system--when the
problem doesn't call for it. This is what I HATE about JAVA (which in
general I prefer to C++): It's soooo annoying to have to define a class and
declare your main program as static void main() just because the language
demands that everything be an object!
What I might like is an official OOP library and/or a preprocessor (perhaps
based on David Cuny's |Dot). This would make OOP readily available but in
no way burden programmers who don't want it or programs that don't need it.
This would also be less likely to crowd out alternative OOP schemes that
might be better for particular applications. And I do think that Euphoria
can benefit from having multiple OOP models available. For example, I think
David Cuny's Llama is an excellent specialized OOP system for dealing with
the Windows API--but some of it's features detract from it as a generic OOP
system, IMHO. (This is not a negative criticism of Llama--I think it's a
great piece of work.)
I'd love to hear what others working to bring OOP to Euphoria think about
this.
--Mike Nelson
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: OOP in "official" Euphoria
>Gary Dumer wrote:
>
>> For example, I think David Cuny's Llama is an excellent
>> specialized OOP system for dealing with the Windows API
>
>Llama better not be tied to the Windows API, or I'll be in trouble when it
>comes time to port to DOS and the X Window System!
>
>The core system (class.e) is actually platform neutral. Many of the classes
>*are* Win32 specific, because the wrap native Win32 controls. On the other
>hand, the emulated control classes rely on underlying classes to hide
>implementation details, and should also be platform neutral.
>
>Even the event system (in SysTrap.e) is fairly neutral, although there's a
>good chance that I may move to a more Qt-like signal and slot mechanism.
>
>
>> --but some of it's features detract from it as a generic
>> OOP system, IMHO.
>
>While my plan for Llama wasn't to design a generic OOP system, the need to
>make key portions of the code platform neutral led to a fairly generic
>implementation. I'm curious what features you consider undesirable. The
>latest version went though some fairly drastic changes, and I'm open to
>making more, provided they make sense for my goals.
>
>-- David Cuny
