OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Object Oriented Programming

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Jan 03, 2007
• 1081 views

Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
> You can get more criticism of OOP in places like this one:
> 
> <a
> href="http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Methodologies/Object-Oriented/Criticism/">http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Methodologies/Object-Oriented/Criticism/</a>

Thanks for the link.

Despite being a never-really-got-oop kinda guy, I was looking at Tapani's 
post and thinking "hmm, maybe"... but reading some of these links reminded 
me that what I had just seen was *NOT OOP*.

We must not put OOP into Eu, ever.

We do not want (multiple) inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, scalar,
overloading, prototyping, instance, attribute, constructor, destructor,
method and who knows what else to become part of "Eu-speak".

========================================================================
I'm all for, and very interested, if someone writes "here is a (working)
program that would have been SO much easier if I could have written THIS!"
========================================================================

But PLEASE let's not call it OOP, even if some of it bears remarkable
similarity to features found in other languages.

Borrow/steal the best bits by all means, but don't call it OOP.

So I say scope not class, procedure or function not method, etc.
(hmm, I guess that is pretty much the sort of theoretical statement that
 I doubt will get us anywhere, whereas well-thought-out examples, along
 with the query "does this look nice?" might, possibly...)

And to the question is it OOP? I say plan to reply: "No. Absolutely not.
It takes the best bits and avoids those that made people hate OOP. You
can write huge programs without ever knowing anything about OOP. If you
are already an oop-head, you should get by, miss a few things, and take
a while to re-learn how to code properly." 

Lastly, I think we should all promise to point fingers and laugh at anyone
who says "we should have this because it is in C++".

Regards,
Pete
PS regarding Matt not using new, shouldn't it always from the get-go (ie
[pre] C++) have been x = Myclass.new(blah) anyway? <shrug>