To Rev or not to Rev

[James Spencer]

On May 2, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:

> Setting those aside, Rev lacks several characteristics most people  
> consider inherent to OO. That doesn't make it bad or good,  
> necessarily.
>

When this thread started, my reaction was because of these missing  
characteristics, I would have said that Rev is not OO except in a way  
that doesn't reflect the general benefits of OOP.  But the more I  
think about it, with the benefit of the comments here, I've come to  
the conclusion that while it is missing some OO characteristics, it  
also possesses some very significant features that are missing from  
languages that are considered (at least by some) to be more  
traditionally OO.  Specifically, the more I use Objective C with its  
dynamic messaging, which is very similar in many ways to Rev's  
messaging, the more I realize C++'s lacks in this regard.  For  
another example, one cannot write handlers except in the context of  
an object: an instance of a button, a group, a card, a stack, or  
whatever; it simply doesn't permit non-OO programming.

Having said all that, it really doesn't matter and as you say, none  
of this is, in itself, good or bad.  Rev (and it's related  
environments such as HC, SC, etc.) can't even be analyzed using  
traditional computer science analysis.  It's just different which is  
what makes it so damn great!

Spence

James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN

jspencer78 at charter.net

"Badges??  We don't need no stinkin badges!"