http://www.purebasic.com
https://www.purebasic.fr/english/
Code: Select all
If Me.Idiot() And You.Idiot()
Me.Marry(You)
You.ThrowPotAt(Me)
Me.Buy(WidescreenTV)
If Me.GetMarriageStatus()=Typical
You.Divorce(Me)
You.Marry(SomeSexyOtherDudeWithLotsOfMoneyFromPyramidScheme)
Endif
Me.Suicide()
Endif
Console.Print(Life.Dump())
End
Code: Select all
If IsIdiot(Me) And IsIdiot(You)
Marry(Me,You)
ThrowPot(You,Me)
Buy(Me,WidescreenTV)
If GetMarriageStatus(Me,You)=Typical
Divorce(Me,You)
Marry(SomeSexyOtherDudeWithLotsOfMoneyFromPyramidScheme,You)
Endif
Suicide(Me)
Endif
Print(Dump(Life))
End
Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would..
Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient..
Interviewer: What?
Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a company re-using its code?
How funny it is that you're probably using Windows or Linux to write this. How object oriented is the Linux kernel? Is it not a large project? Does it not scale well?u9 wrote:It is also a fact that OOP scales better. OOP is a virtually necessity for large projects, as both GedB and USCode also stated.
Which is also fundamental in procedural programming. Ever heard of units? That's how pascal does it. It's not object oriented. It has data hiding.u9 wrote:The idea is that data, and the functions that work on that data should stay together.
Yeah, it's excellent to indtroduce overhead, right? That being said, inheritance and polymorphism are not exclusive to object oriented programming, it's just another way of thinking of the same things. When I look at wikipedia it lists a few key points of object oriented programming and no point but the objects themselves are exclusive to object oriented programming.That said, it is easy to see that OOP does create overhead on small single-person projects.
...
Still, for small projects, things such as inheritance and polymorphism are excellent concepts to use even for small programs.
It is a fact that inside my computer there is no "car" that can car.drive. There is a collection of numbers that looks like a car. I don't know if you call my computer unreal, but I think it's pretty heavy, and there's no car.drive inside it, only data, which is why procedural programming that manipulates data models the real world better. (Now I'm not saying whether that is a good thing or not.)Let me start by saying that "OOP models the real world better" is a fact.
u9's sig wrote:The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents. (Nathaniel Borenstein)
This is exactly what OOP is about. abstraction ! Abstracting from the data inside your poor computer. I didn't say the real world was inside your computer. I said it models the real world, the real world of e.g. cars which, yes, can drive(). You don't think of your data as a bunch of semi-conductive material powered by electron flow do you? You don't think of your data as small latches set to one of two possible positions do you? You don't generally think of your data as a long row of ones and zeros do you? You abstract from this fact (i hope)Trond wrote:...
It is a fact that inside my computer there is no "car" that can car.drive. There is a collection of numbers that looks like a car. I don't know if you call my computer unreal, but I think it's pretty heavy, and there's no car.drive inside it, only data, which is why procedural programming that manipulates data models the real world better. (Now I'm not saying whether that is a good thing or not.)