Rob Kinyon skribis 2006-01-18 20:57 (-0500):
> Well, for one thing, you can't write OO code in P5.
Nonsense. OO isn't a set of features, and OO isn't syntax.
Granted, syntax can really help to understand OO, and a set of features
is nice, because it avoids having to re-invent wheels.
But OO is just that: object orientation. It is a way of programming, and
that can very well be done without any syntax or features for that in
place.
C's filedescriptors are objects/invocants, and so are PHP's MySQL
resources.
Perl 5 has syntax for OO, and even a few useful features. Even though
these are not needed at all to write OO code, it certainly does help
people to stick to OO design.
And if more features are needed, CPAN has them.
Object orientation is still object orientation if you write it
differently: "$bar->{foo}->()", if that's how you decide to write a method
call on $bar, is still OO.
Classes, like OO syntax, are not necessary for OO.
> You can write code that behaves like you're in OO-land and that talks
> with an OO accent (so long as you don't look behind the curtain), but
> it's not OO.
Your definition of OO is far too specific for a 2-letter acronym.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
