OOP in Rev...
viktoras at ekoinf.net
Wed Mar 19 10:19:36 EDT 2008
me too like rOOP, but I feel it is a little incomplete, just one more
step. The ones that you call real objects are limited to user interface
controls only. The thing I was curious about is a possibility to create
an independent data object which is nor control neither a gui element.
Which in this case may simply mean enhanced arrays...
What for ?. I think this would make code cleaner and reduce amount of
commenting in larger projects.. Also facilitate creation or adoptions of
existing libraries in C or C++ for very specific purposes - like
reading shapefiles, netcdfs, doing geographical transformations,
astronomy, bioinformatics, etc... This consequently will increase the
scope of applications that can be created in Rev and hopefully
availability of diverse libraries.
In general it would make creation of complex software easier. We can
already simulate objects using arrays, but at least the code would be
more readable (!!!) if I were able to distinguish array operations from
Mark Schonewille wrote:
> I just don't get it. I never ever felt a need for OOP and I just can't
> imagine I ever will, using xTalks. I'd call xTalk rOOP (really object
> oriented programming) because xTalk uses real objects, like fields,
> buttons, etc.
> Why don't you simply forget about OOP? What does OOP have that rOOP
> Consultancy and Software Engineering
> Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software.
> Download at http://www.salery.biz
> Op 19-mrt-2008, om 13:25 heeft viktoras didziulis het volgende
>> I would like to define a class, an object (the both with their
>> properties) and methods that are not a part of graphical user
>> interface or Revolution engine...
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode