It's better in that it works the way we (humans) think.Can you, instead of simply saying that OOP is better, say what with OOP that is better?
Think about your Car. It's a car with properties (color) and methods (move). As simple as that.
It may model the way you think, but I definetely don't think like that. I've got a car. The car doesn't have wheels, wheels are part of the car. Without everything it consists of, it's nothing. In an OOP world it will be an empty class (named car). This is a fundamental difference, and here OOP is closer to the way you (and probably most people) think, but here procedural is closer to reality and the way I think. This doesn't mean OOP is better, this means it suits you better (which I don't doubt since you advocate it.)utopiomania wrote:Trond wrote:It's better in that it works the way we (humans) think.Can you, instead of simply saying that OOP is better, say what with OOP that is better?
Think about your Car. It's a car with properties (color) and methods (move). As simple as that.
Now first of all why are you so interested in talking about purely object oriented languages? Do you think you have found a hole in the definition of OOP? I assure you the poor abstract-thinking nerds that come up with such definitions can help you on your abstract way.Trond wrote:And if "even the primitives are implemented as objects" then what are they made of? Other objects? And what are these made of? Other objects? And what are these made of? Other objects? And what are these made of?
I'm sure I have stated this in a previous post. So I guess you must be running out of arguments or you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. But to add to my previous post, I can say that modeling the real world all the way through the development process using objects has advantages, among others it provides a level of abstraction which is maintained through out the process.Trond wrote:Can you, instead of simply saying that OOP is better, say what with OOP that is better?
Code: Select all
I'm sure I have stated this in a previous post. So I guess you must be running out of arguments or you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. But to add to my previous post, I can say that modeling the real world all the way through the development process using objects has advantages, among others it provides a level of abstraction which is maintained through out the process.
Code: Select all
The idea is that you have different levels of abstraction. You can consider the car as a whole providing some functionality... or as the sum of its parts. Do you need to know that the car has wheels, engine, gearbox etc. in order to use it? No. You can "move" your car with out knowing the underlying mechanisms achieving such the goal (of moving you from one location to another). This is called encapsulation.
Code: Select all
When one says "this is the way humans think" I guess one is considering the mainstream. We all have different presuppositions... this is why we are having this discussion. My intent in posting here is that I just didn't want anyone to leave this thread thinking that OOP is worthless... I wanted to state its importance in the industry.
Hehe good one (y)Trond wrote:(But FORTRAN sent man to the moon.)
Aurorarsts wrote:Well, if a procedural oriented bloak wanted to test the waters of the OO world, what language would you recommend he or she try? They would prefer something with capabilities at least equal to PB - e.g.
- Very fast compiler which creates highly optimized executables
- No external DLLs, runtime interpreter or anything else required when creating executables
- Access to full OS API
- Dedicated editor and development environment
- Integrated debugger to easily trace programming bugs.
Something I could use as a reasonable comparison.
Oh yes, somewhat affordable too
cheers
Paul is not the only developer in the Aurora team. I'm a partner developer along with nine others, Paul is the lead. So you can see it's future is quite safe.rsts wrote:Now, given Paul's track record, if I add the caveat - "likely to be around and supported for a while" - what would your recommendation be?
Very nice! I might get out my credit card.White Eagle wrote:KBasic is OOP and has a free version.Aren't there any free?