Transcript and Dot Notation

[Richard Gaskin]

Dan Shafer wrote:
> I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
> object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
> difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.
> 
> So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
> non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but I vastly prefer that we take
> an OO fork at this point.

Agreed.  While there's been no public commitment on this topic from the 
mother ship, what hints we've been given suggest that the implementation 
would include OOP capabilities as OPTIONS for the scripter.

Nearly every discussion about this has been in terms of OPTIONS, so I'm 
not sure why there's this perception that new OPTIONS will be forced on 
people who choose not to use them.

To use a current example, regex is an OPTION.  If you don't like it you 
can parse strings using more verbose syntax.

As for dot-notation, I find the strongest resistance come from those who 
don't use languages in which it's supported.  This isn't to suggest that 
it's superior for all uses (nor is even OOP *always* superior to 
anything else; everything has trade-offs), but if we see OOP extensions 
to the language it would, as you note, make it unusually difficult to 
write and even more difficult to learn if it didn't use at least a few 
common OOP conventions.

Not everything that isn't Transcript is always wrong.  Sometimes there's 
a lot to learn from alternatives....

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com