Dungeons and Dragons

Lets compare D&D classes with popular programming languages.
(#1 most nerdy thread ever)

Fighter - C++
-Very versatile but more complex and not quite as effective in melee as a barbarian.

Barbarian - C
-Very simple, very powerful.

Ranger - Java
-Easy to play, very popular, vast collection of abilities that help solve problems quickly.

Wizard - Lisp/Scheme
-Most powerful caster, highest intelligence.

Sorcerer - Haskell
-Slightly less intelligent than a wizard, but makes up for it in charisma.

Rogue - Scripting Languages
-Executes behind your back.

Cleric - SQL
-Revives players when they crash.
 
Paladin - Python
-Easiest to play, but forces you to play a certain way.

>>68
Um, I agree on reflection, which is what I mean why I say you don't need compiler help for it. That was sort of my point; these people saying OO compilers are more complex than C compilers are crazy, because it's a nonsensical statement to begin with. The most reflection C++ actually supports is dynamic_cast<>, which imho is a bad thing because it poses some fairly serious overhead.

But how can you possibly say OO doesn't support encapsulation? You make variables private, inline accessors/mutators, provide factory classes that return implementations of pure virtual interfaces...