"be consistent" | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Sorry to recreate a dead thread but.. Conversations like this really get me in a huff. I dont like to see languages being catagorised as OO or otherwise, when such a catagorisation is only being made to place one language above another. (I know merlyn was not dong this but my dander is up so I am gonna rant a bit)
What exactly is an OO language?? What, for that matter, is OO? You cant have a 'true' OO language because OO is a programmers or designers construction. A programming language can at best support OO constructs, however such support is NOT required for OO programming. I have written 'true' OO C, now it is clear that C has no OO support within it. I have however implemented polymorphism (of sorts) inheritence (of sorts). I have also (hangs head in shame) written java with a single object and a whole pile of static methods, I was in a a hurry OK! ;-) ). A language is a not OO a program is. Perl has the capabilities to support OO programming ideas, it itself is neither OO nor not OO. I consider myself a good programmer, I like the OO principles. When writting perl I use OO designs.. exactly the same as when I write java. WORD!
In reply to Perl is NOT OO and neither is JAVA
by zigster
|
|