On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Marcos Douglas B. Santos via Lazarus wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus
<lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Marcos Douglas B. Santos via Lazarus wrote:
Hi,
I'm working in my new "pet project" called Xavier.
Xavier is an object-oriented library for work with XML.
I don't understand the 'why' ? Should I understand that you consider the DOM
units not object-oriented ?
Yes and no.
Michael, with all my respect, that depends of your view about Object thinking.
Yes, DOM uses classes and objects, but IMO Objects is more than that.
Objects are more close to Functional programming than most people think.
As I understand it, objects are exactly the opposite of functional programming,
in that they encapsulate state, and functional programming wants to avoid
state (variables, if you want).
If can code classes but if you are implementing (all) in an imperative
way, I mean line by line telling the computer how to do something
instead of code what you just want, you may not are thinking in terms
of Objects. Your class, in these cases, is just a "bucket of data and
procedures".
Yes. That's what an object is.
In a perfect design, we may only connect all objects to work in a
"task", call "run", and "they" will know what to do.
Ah. You just replace methods by objects.
You should be programming Java:
https://steve-yegge.blogspot.be/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html
I prefer imperative programming. (verbs, if you want).
It comes more natural.
Well, each his own style. But, if you allow me: the post on the lazarus
forum and the Xavier page should really explain what you mean by OOP. I
guess most people will be confused, as I am.
Thanks for explaining.
Michael.
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
