Dan- Saturday, April 30, 2005, 11:31:09 AM, you wrote:
DS> world around me in terms of objects. From a programming perspective, I DS> find myself always more comfortable dealing with objects in the sense DS> in which Smalltalk and Java (and decidedly NOT C++) think about them. I'm in agreement with everything you said there (and I'm quite shocked to hear myself say something like that) except for the following: OOPness in java and in C++ is very much in the same "sense" if you're actually programming C++ as C++ and not as "a better C". I, on the other hand, have too much baggage of years of C programming behind me to do this properly. Java forces this on you while C++ lets it slide. Now, having said that and still having the floor, there are some elements of OOP in transcript as it is today: message inheritance is done right, even though you can't subclass objects (I'd *love* to be able to do that); polymorphism can, of course, be applied to any language - it's just a matter of how much work a given language requires to implement it; encapsulation is... well... you can fake it with custom properties. ...and I'm really taken with the eclipse IDE, especially with the jUnit plugin. -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution