On Wed, 6 May 2009 11:27:05 -0700 Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote: > (Perl's approximation of) OO
I've often seen this one bandied about, and I can't say I agree with it. Sure, to a Java programmer, what Perl has doesn't really class as OO. [pun unintended]. But, to a Smalltalk programmer, neither does Java. Java, C++, C#, Python people all laugh at GObject for bringing object-like behaviours to C. Meanwhile the Lisp/CLOS people stare at all of those and snigger in the back corner. Can we perhaps agree to differ? Objects are "things", they can do "stuff". What one language may call OO might not exactly fit another language. Do objects have properties? Events? Signals? Are objects referential or valued? Do they reference count, or garbage collect? Can they have virtual methods? Multiple dispatch..? The list goes on... All these are minor little differences. Some of you will have just one floor in your home. Some two. Maybe some even three. Some might even have a split-level kitchen with some steps down into it that makes wheelchair users annoyed. Some might have a sloping sunroof. Some have wooden doors, some plastic, some metal... Can we please get over these small differences and just agree that a home is a home? -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leon...@leonerd.org.uk ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
