[rescue] OO is often fake

[Kevin Loch]

"Greg A. Woods" wrote:
> 
> 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!  :-)
> 
That's why plain old C works for me.  As I write more
and more code (I'm not a programmer, really) I find myself
re-using a surprising ammount of it.  If you design it right,
regular C can be extremely re-usable.

KL