OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Object Oriented Programming

• Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com> Jan 02, 2007
• 1059 views

Tommy Carlier wrote:
> 
> If you add OO to Euphoria, people will have to learn it.
> Why? Because sooner or later (probably sooner), they will see Euphoria
> code that is object-oriented. How would the base libraries look?
> Would they be OO or not? If they are, people will have to learn OO programming
> to use them. If they aren't, then wouldn't that look kind of ridiculous?
> Having an OO language, with base libraries that aren't OO?

OO can be added to Euphoria an no one would be forced to use the OO features.

The base libraries (at least initially) can stay exactly as is.

If in the future they are converted to an OO style they could be very easily 
used by people who don't use OO.  It's very easy to use simple objects without
knowing anything about OO).
 
And, I imagine the current libraries would always be available for backwards
compatibility.
 

> Because of this, I think the main distribution of Euphoria shouldn't have
> a full object-oriented system. Keep it simple, like it is now. One possibility
> would be to develop a separate object-oriented Euphoria distribution.
> That way, people can start with the main Euphoria distribution, and later
> switch to the OO distribution, IF THEY WANT TO, or they can stay with the main
> distribution, or they can use both. Somebody with more experience in other
> OO languages (like Java or C#) could start with the OO distribution, or not.


It seems 100% obvious to me ...

"If" OO can be added without forcing anyone to use OO features and only adding
a small size to Eu and a small reduction in speed ... I so go for it.
If this isn't possible (and I don't know?) I'd say it deserves more discussion.

Regards,

Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com