Rev & OOP

[Mark Wieder]

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
 mwieder at ahsoftware.net