i'm looking for a language that does object-oriented well. speed isn't a huge concern, portability would be nice.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-07 23:49 ID:lROOpvmV
Seriously though, I find OO hardly useful AT ALL
and dont get me wrong, im not some procedural programming nutcase, I just have other methods to organise my data structures and relatins (in a function way)
so, really I say down with OO.. but thats just me.
well i've never really used OO, it just seemed to be the hip new thing, so i figured i'd check it out. but from what i gather from the wikipedia article, it's pretty much the equivalent of passing a struct pointer to every function. am i missing the point of it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 0:05 ID:5Zt4kZrR
Java does OO good, C++ gives more flexibility but can be more difficult to grasp
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 0:14 ID:4AMry+ZV
>>4
``Hip new thing''? Are you a time traveller from '95 or what?
Yes, you are missing the point of it just like most people who think they know what it means, including every single C++ programmer.
Java definitely doesn't do OO well, it just forces its perverse view of OOP on everyone.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 0:29 ID:zIja89Or
>>6
right, well, you are clearly wrong in a lot of ways. but who isnt when it comes to OO.
clearly all these concepts have been around for years, but its still "new" in terms of popularity, its only recently that its being used in mainstream.
but, why?
I mean really what are the benefits, you can sling hundreds of buzzwords around but its not ACTUALLY useful at all.
>>7
What the hell is this crap? This seems like dissociated press output.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 0:45 ID:zIja89Or
>>8
its just my words mate, call it crap if you want.. it just proves my point even further that OO is useless and you cant deny it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 1:09 ID:xA3ujsdv
>>4
There are 3 main things that form the core of OO: inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism. Once you've learned those, you're in a good position to judge if and when you should use it.
OO's no panacea, but it can help to organise your program design and reduce the temptation to copypasta similar blocks of code.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 1:18 ID:4AMry+ZV
>>7
Are you sure you replied to the right post? I'm not an OO advocate. I just said that the idea that OO is "the equivalent of passing a struct pointer to every function" is grossly incorrect but very common.
OO is pretty useful for some tasks, like modeling real-world objects, but overall, it's pretty overrated in my opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 2:25 ID:zIja89Or
>>10
yaeh, someone down to earth on the OO issue, finally.
>>11
"I'm not an OO advocate" OH yes, you bloody well are!
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 2:27 ID:4AMry+ZV
>>12
What the hell? I'm saying practically the same thing as >>10 and your reaction is the exact opposite. Somehow I get the idea that IHBT.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 3:26 ID:ljeNPUj1
What i like about OO Programming is the possibility, or rather necessarity, to put methods and attributes into classes to increase clarity. I started with OOP to begin with and when i had to use the non OOP winapi in c++, i saw what a blessing classes truly are. IntelliSense listed like hundreds of winapi methods, all inside the global namespace. Seriously, what the fuck?
its still "new" in terms of popularity, its only recently that its being used in mainstream.
The other guy got it right: where the hell have you been hiding the past decade?
I'm just waiting for someone to start saying structured programming was the big hit in the 90s.
>>16
I have to agree. While I'm no fan of Java it's fucking easy to learn and literally every tiny facet of the language is documented to hell and back.
Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy