PureBasic Forums - English

The only OOP I have ever done was with Javascript. And for me it made the program feel exceptionally bloated. If you need OOP you should go to a language that has it. There are also examples of OOP with PureBasic using Interfaces.

I don't know why people believe they need OOP for a large program. They can accomplish everything they need in any size with a procedural language such as PureBasic. If PureBasic adopted OOP it might make this wonderful language a mess and I would hate to see that happen.

I do not see why implementing basic OOP to allow nice encapsulation may have to complicate things.

OOP sucks in javascript because javascript itself sucks.
OOP sucks in java, well because it is java.
OOP could be difficult in C++ because the syntax is confusing.
OOP in VB 5/6 is a mess because VB 5/6 itself were a mess.

Basic OOP on itself is very straightforward, defining a class is nothing more than grouping functions and variables (all private or public), and instantiating it as an object, is not complicated to understand or use at all, and can make large projects easier to manage.

If PB was to implement OOP, it doesn't need to be complicated at all, I do not see why PB may have to change at all for anybody who decided to keep writing programs without resorting to it. This is: OOP should be available, not forced upon the user.

IMHO the way FreeBasic does it, its what PB should aim for if OOP was to happen on PB
Have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebasic

Stop hijacking this thread with another OOP discussion! It's for quotes about how PureBasic will die, not OOP!

MachineCode wrote:Stop hijacking this thread with another OOP discussion! It's for quotes about how PureBasic will die, not OOP!

OOP, OOP, OOP!!!!

I sense shenanigans afoot.
Instead of a new topic, surely the replies could have been trashed instead?

yes, should be the best

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 13&t=45781

Nituvious wrote:"I see.", said the blind man.
Thanks for the tip, I didn't know that. I'm fairly inexperienced with pointers and memory.

I don't think you're expert enough for talking about the sense of OOP. Sorry.

The more you go under the surface of PB the more you will release it's potential
in your programs. The more you stay on the surface of PB (or any other language)
the more there will be these useless discussions that are going on for years now
about what is better , oop or procedural , purebasic or powerbasic , etc. etc. etc.
Aren't Unix, Linux, Windows and Mac OS for the most part written in C ?
Doesn't that say enough already about the power of procedural coding ?
cw

codewalker wrote:The more you go under the surface of PB the more you will release it's potential
in your programs. The more you stay on the surface of PB (or any other language)
the more there will be these useless discussions that are going on for years now
about what is better , oop or procedural , purebasic or powerbasic , etc. etc. etc.
Aren't Unix, Linux, Windows and Mac OS for the most part written in C ?
Doesn't that say enough already about the power of procedural coding ?
cw

I didn't say procedural coding should be removed. I didn't even say what I like more. I just said we can't trust him as long as he is not competent enough. Nevertheless my opinion is for OOP on big systems.

ColeopterusMaximus wrote:Basic OOP on itself is very straightforward, defining a class is nothing more than grouping functions and variables (all private or public), and instantiating it as an object, is not complicated to understand or use at all, and can make large projects easier to manage.

Then why not use the oop pre-compilers?
I don't get why everybody's whining about missing oop and yet only few people seem to consider those pre-compilers.

Pure Object
Another OOP Precompiler
Simple OOP

DarkDragon wrote:

codewalker wrote:The more you go under the surface of PB the more you will release it's potential
in your programs. The more you stay on the surface of PB (or any other language)
the more there will be these useless discussions that are going on for years now
about what is better , oop or procedural , purebasic or powerbasic , etc. etc. etc.
Aren't Unix, Linux, Windows and Mac OS for the most part written in C ?
Doesn't that say enough already about the power of procedural coding ?
cw

I didn't say procedural coding should be removed. I didn't even say what I like more. I just said we can't trust him as long as he is not competent enough. Nevertheless my opinion is for OOP on big systems.

Sorry but lack of expertise about a specific aspect of programming is hardly grounds to dismiss an opinion.

I don't know much about memory and pointers either, but that has nothing to do with OOP.

When I was using Python, I found it an extremely pleasant language to work with, because of its easy syntax and OOP support. In fact it was the most fun I had with programming in a long, long time.. The matter at heart here is that, basic OOP is pretty nice. Nobody is asking to turn PB upside down on its head.

I am happy that we have Structures and can use them on just about anything we want to, it makes life a lot easier, but I'd still like to one day write a Proc that has set/get methods, or any other methods I might decide I want, etc.

Maybe I will look at the pre-compilers, but I seem to remember it giving me second thoughts when I first looked at them.. I can't remember why, I probably found it difficult and figured I would mess it up or something, but I've learned a lot since then, so maybe I'll look again.

Anyway those are my thoughts.. I find it extremely distasteful when people make snarky comments about someone else's (lack of) knowledge, especially as if that somehow disqualifies an opinion.

DarkDragon wrote:

codewalker wrote:The more you go under the surface of PB the more you will release it's potential
in your programs. The more you stay on the surface of PB (or any other language)
the more there will be these useless discussions that are going on for years now
about what is better , oop or procedural , purebasic or powerbasic , etc. etc. etc.
Aren't Unix, Linux, Windows and Mac OS for the most part written in C ?
Doesn't that say enough already about the power of procedural coding ?
cw

I didn't say procedural coding should be removed. I didn't even say what I like more. I just said we can't trust him as long as he is not competent enough. Nevertheless my opinion is for OOP on big systems.

You base incompetence with inexperience? That's pretty lame.
Besides, I never claimed to be an expert in any topic. I made a post targeted at the point the original poster of this topic made here: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =7&t=45773
It just so happens that a moderator decided to instead of deleting the OOP discussion posts, create a new thread with the same posts in it.

"The only exercise some people get is jumping to conclusions, running down their friends, side-stepping responsibility, and pushing their luck!"

I say that 2 + 2 = 4

But I'm not a mathematician. So does that disqualify me from making such a statement? With all due respect, Nituvious is entitled to his opinion and is one in which I agree with entirely. I have nothing against oop, I have done oop programming in the past but I prefer procedural as it more closely matches my way of thinking and coding style. I've also had the opportunity to work on large scale systems for banks that were entirely coded in QuickBasic and no external LIBS except for those that were coded in QuickBasic as well. I can't say that they were perfect (what system is) but they were very good and fairly easy to implement IMO.

That's my 1 + 1 cents

Jack

Zach wrote:

DarkDragon wrote:

codewalker wrote:The more you go under the surface of PB the more you will release it's potential
in your programs. The more you stay on the surface of PB (or any other language)
the more there will be these useless discussions that are going on for years now
about what is better , oop or procedural , purebasic or powerbasic , etc. etc. etc.
Aren't Unix, Linux, Windows and Mac OS for the most part written in C ?
Doesn't that say enough already about the power of procedural coding ?
cw

I didn't say procedural coding should be removed. I didn't even say what I like more. I just said we can't trust him as long as he is not competent enough. Nevertheless my opinion is for OOP on big systems.

Sorry but lack of expertise about a specific aspect of programming is hardly grounds to dismiss an opinion.

I don't know much about memory and pointers either, but that has nothing to do with OOP.

So you walked along without knowing what references and/or pointers are (the difference is really marginal)? We always use lack of expertise as reason for dismissing an opinion - see Guttenberg! Nobody said anything about Merkel, yet .. but she as doctor of physics should get fired now because she knows everything about nuclear power plants and wants more of them in Germany. Its really nonsense how the people react on her mistakes compared to the reaction on Guttenberg's mistakes.