Interview by Quin and Nsstudios

[threedslider]

What is the point of the 1000th OOP discussion here?

The point of OOP is always a great thing so it is still hot topic for programmer who like to conceive their applications but procedural programming is still nice too

Not all programmer want for procedural programming with their taste to make it.

[Little John]

What is the point of the 1000th OOP discussion here?

The point of OOP is always a great thing so it is still hot topic for programmer who like to conceive their applications but procedural programming is still nice too

Not all programmer want for procedural programming with their taste to make it.

You did not understand my question.

[Quin]

What is the point of the 1000th OOP discussion here?

The point is that it was discussed in the interview, so it's being discussed in a topic.........about the interview.

[Quin]

I also like the statement that there will be no object-oriented language.

Some tasks are easier to implement using OOP. It would be great if there were procedures in the structures.
I proposed a model very similar to the modules, but at the same time, speaking in OOP language, creating instances of modules and not static modules. https://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewto ... 95#p454795

This is exactly what I would love to see, and something like this is why I asked Fred about it. He said maybe, so I don't expect it soon, but one can dream. Or invent time travel

[Little John]

The point is that it was discussed in the interview, so it's being discussed in a topic.........about the interview.

It has already been discussed about 1000 times.

[Andre]

Thanks a lot for this new interview, Fred, Quin & Enne!

[BarryG]

What is the point of the 1000th OOP discussion here?

I know, that's why I linked to Fred's comment back in 2013. He has categorically stated that it's NOT going to happen.

[skywalk]

We're breaking him down slowly!

He mentioned procedures in structures.

I wanted overloaded procedures for long time.
DoMathI(), DoMathD(), DoMathF() seems a waste.

[threedslider]

You did not understand my question.

Lol ... Have you seen someone trying to make OOP in Purebasic and it work something ? Not true but a simulation

So there are still programmer who love OOP that answer your question, sorry

[mk-soft]

What is the point of the 1000th OOP discussion here?

That there is no longer any need for discussion

[tatanas]

Hi,

Before developing in PureBasic, I used AutoIt, which to my knowledge was not an object-oriented language. However, there was a similar syntax when using COM objects, which was very convenient (https://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/do ... ComRef.htm). Would it be possible to have an equivalent in PureBasic ? Is this OOP ? Sorry if my question is silly.
And thanks for your work.

[SPH]

Hi,

Before developing in PureBasic, I used AutoIt, which to my knowledge was not an object-oriented language. However, there was a similar syntax when using COM objects, which was very convenient (https://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/do ... ComRef.htm). Would it be possible to have an equivalent in PureBasic ? Is this OOP ? Sorry if my question is silly.
And thanks for your work.

PB = 0 % POO

never became

[mk-soft]

Hi,

Before developing in PureBasic, I used AutoIt, which to my knowledge was not an object-oriented language. However, there was a similar syntax when using COM objects, which was very convenient (https://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/do ... ComRef.htm). Would it be possible to have an equivalent in PureBasic ? Is this OOP ? Sorry if my question is silly.
And thanks for your work.

You can still use VBScript or JScript with ActiveScript for COM objects under PB. But has been cancelled by MS for the future.
However, JavaScript is still supported with the WebViewGadget.
Let's see what comes as a successor to ActiveScript control from MS.

[diceman]

Great Interview, thanks!
Good to see PureBasic is still actively supported, patched and developed.