Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome "I followed the debate about a successor for the C/C++ combination as the primary language for developing the GNOME core desktop platform very closely last month. There has been discussion about a number of options. What I would like to do on this page is give an overview how a probably less well-known language might be a viable compromise as a C/C++ successor. This language is called Eiffel and exists for over a decade. Eiffel takes the principle of Object-Oriented programming to its extremes and, as a consequence, is a very easy to learn language."
Thread beginning with comment 65232
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Bind me!
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bind me!"

Member since:

"Object Orientation is a very abstract thing, and I've had it twisted against me many a time in arguments, which is why I prefer to define what I'm talking about beforehand. Object Oriented doesn't imply another other than being "oriented" around "object", neither of which is very descriptive. As far as I know, there is no definition of OO, and it's doubtful there ever will be as there are so many different versions. "

We've had this discussion before and I told you before that "Holub on Patterns" had a definition of what an "Object" was. Maybe it would be more proper to say that there's a central quality of what OO is, and multiple misunderstandings of what OO is. OO seems to be right next to XML in the "misunderstanding" department.

"Unfortunately, the general definition of "OO" tends toward strict and overcomplicated designs with lots of extra crud slopped on top of the code. "

Judging by a lot of code I've seen over the years. Apparently OO isn't needed to get the above qualities.

Maybe we should start giving all programmers a copy of "The pragmatic programmer"?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Bind me!
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 05:21 in reply to "RE[6]: Bind me!"
Member since:



We've had this discussion before and I told you before that "Holub on Patterns" had a definition of what an "Object" was. Maybe it would be more proper to say that there's a central quality of what OO is, and multiple misunderstandings of what OO is. OO seems to be right next to XML in the "misunderstanding" department.

Exactly. There is no standard definition. What qualifies as OO is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation at hand, however.

-bytecoder

Reply Parent Score: 0