Re: OOP in "official" Euphoria
------=_NextPart_000_0090_01BEC6C2.EFCD0B20
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
------=_NextPart_000_0090_01BEC6C2.EFCD0B20
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Rob writes that incorporating OOP =
into Euphoria=20
is not a high priority with him. As one of the many who is working =
in this=20
area, I agree with him! The various OOP systems under development =
have=20
different purposes--different strengths and weaknesses. I love the =
freedom=20
to use any I find useful and to write my own or modify someone else's as =
I see=20
fit. Even more, I love the freedom to not use OOP--and have the =
overhead=20
of an OOP system--when the problem doesn't call for it. This is =
what I=20
HATE about JAVA (which in general I prefer to C++): It's soooo =
annoying to=20
have to define a class and declare your main program as static void =
main() just=20
because the language demands that everything be an object!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>What I might like is an official OOP =
library=20
and/or a preprocessor (perhaps based on David Cuny's |Dot). This =
would=20
make OOP readily available but in no way burden programmers who don't =
want it or=20
programs that don't need it. This would also be less likely to =
crowd out=20
alternative OOP schemes that might be better for particular =
applications. =20
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=20
features detract from it as a generic OOP system, IMHO. (This is =
not a=20
negative criticism of Llama--I think it's a great piece of =
work.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I'd love to hear what others working to bring OOP to =
Euphoria=20
think about this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>--Mike Nelson</FONT></DIV>
------=_NextPart_000_0090_01BEC6C2.EFCD0B20--
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
