[rescue] OO is often fake

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 15:49:59 (-0400), Dave McGuire wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [rescue] C was Cooling 
>
> <troll>
>   Take Perl, for example.  More dollar signs than actual code.  Put
> two colons in something and it magically becomes object-oriented and
> is somehow better.  Etc.
> </troll>

OO in the way most "modern" luser language designers seem to think of it
is really is just a way of thinking -- it doesn't really make your code
work any better, or be any more reusable, etc.  Sometimes it does end up
just being a naming convention with some additional identifier scoping
help.  In my book those are called "modules", not "objects" or "classes".

Now having real objects everywhere, with _everything_ being an instance
of some class, and perhaps with meta classes and such, and of course
with message passing between instances, even for language control
constructs, etc., ala Smalltalk, and to some extent Self, Dylan, Ruby,
et al, then you've really got OO!  :-)

All this python, java, c++, and esp. perl, so-called OO stuff is really
not OO at all.

Now I don't know if real OO is really better -- I guess we'll have to
wait until our CPUs get fast enough to run it all before we'll know... :-)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods at acm.org>;  <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;  <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>