OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Object Oriented Programming

• Posted by duke normandin <dnormandin at bsdrocksperlrolls.com> Jan 02, 2007
• 1087 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?
> 
> 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.

I agree! I left Perl because of it's OOP centricness from Perl4 to Perl5.
Early in the transition, life was not too bad. Then it became increasingly
necessary to learn OOP in order to use the CPAN wealth of modules. Good for
some people - not so good for others.

If a bunch of folks want OOP EU, then I say take the Open Source code and fork
a OOP version -- call it EuphOOria and be done with it. My .02.
--
duke