Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Trans wrote:
>
> > So then you end up writing even crappier programs anyway b/c you
don't
> > really get the model the way it ought to be. So what's the point?
Worse
> > you don't even realize it till you go to add the last little
feature
> > and realize it screws the whole model up, and the only way to get
it in
> > there is to write a god aweful hack.
>
> And how is it terribly different in a program that carefully avoid
using
> any OOP feature (except for the fact that, by choice, you don't use
any
> OOP constructs to simplify the system, or just paraphrase your way
into
> equivalent but different-looking concepts) ?

Really just in that it's easier to code  -- IMHE (Experience).

> Well, I say that alot of OOP code is crappy, and OOP is usually not
> properly taught, because OOP is a new norm and some people have been
too
> enthusiastic and _naż×e_ about it. Worst offender is Java.

For sure. I leanred Java nad then decide to quick forget it. I want
comuters to work for me not the other way around ;-)

> > Oh I'd probably Logo in a heart beat if ther were any _really good_
> > implementations. It's basically just  slightly simplified-syntax
lisp.
>
> Funny, I thought it was a complexified-syntax lisp, but less
powerful.

He he. Simplified for the human, complexified for the computer. The
power is basically the same.

> > And consider BASIC. Who would have ever thought BASIC would become
a
> > premier OOP langage? VB.net has the whole OOP thing going on now
--in
> > some ways even more so than Ruby.
>
> I didn't know VB.NET was BASIC... I thought it was just C# but with
an
> alternate horrendous sin-tax designed to appeal to sixties
nostalgics.

LOL :-) Some parts of it I miss actually. I especailly miss the VB RAD
environment --that was pretty nice.

T