1. Ken, seen ooeu?
Have you looked at Matt's OOEU? Now there's a language i'd pay twice for what i
paid for Euphoria. If it had no bug list and ran at Eu's speed.
Kat
2. Re: Ken, seen ooeu?
Kat wrote:
> Have you looked at Matt's OOEU? Now there's a language i'd pay twice for what
> i paid for Euphoria. If it had no bug list and ran at Eu's speed.
Not really. I was aware that somebody had put together something OOP for
Euphoria. For two reasons I didn't look into it at the time. One, I like
to stick with 'official' versions of things, OOP seems to be something that
should be foundational to a language rather than something added on.
Second because I really, really, really and truly, am tired of the
OOP hype. I like to take what's good and discard the rest. I think
classes are good but inheritance is mostly stupid. In the real world
there are much better (and more maintainable) ways to write code. I'm
sure somebody could come up with wonderful examples of inheritance that
make me look foolish. I'm willing to take that chance.
Is it worth looking into in your opinion?
Twice zero is infinity right? I is just a p/a, math is hard!
3. Re: Ken, seen ooeu?
Well,
Just took a look at ooeu docs. Interesting. I never bought into the
OOP hype. However, I do subscribe to the underlying principles and find
dot notation useful (especially combined with intellisense.)
My focus is building enterprise level software and classes make that a lot
more managable. To me the most overhyped feature of OOP is inheritance.
It complicates software (increasing maintenance) without any real benefit.
Of course, I can see limited application where it can be useful.
Thanks for pointing ooeu out to me.
