in reply to Re^2: Procedural vs OOP modules
in thread Procedural vs OOP modules
> Is there ever a case in the current day to write a module that isn't OOP. The discussion has certainly answered that there is.
Yes! Not everything has to be OO. That's why I enjoy Perl and C++; their designers appreciated that OO is not necessarily the best solution to all problems.
As an aside, I was once hired as a Java programmer but its emphasis on OO felt oppressive and I quit soon after (as mentioned here). Though I managed to hold down a C job without resigning, I didn't enjoy its primitive abstractions (for example, compare this rosetta C function with the other languages!) nor its flawed standard library, such as strtok, singled out for a dishonourable mention at On Interfaces and APIs. I suppose that's the main reason I gravitated towards C++ and (later) Perl. (BTW, Stroustrup describes here why he designed C++ as a multiparadigm programming language).
> I know there are Text::Info and Lingua::EN::Fathom. The latter I am using to create a copy checker that also includes a ratio of first person to second person pronouns. Both these modules count syllables using Lingua::EN::Syllable.
Rather than starting from scratch, you might like to model your new module on your favourite from these three (they all seem to have decent authors):
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^4: Procedural vs OOP modules
by Bod (Parson) on Oct 30, 2021 at 15:56 UTC | |
|
Re^4: Procedural vs OOP modules
by Bod (Parson) on Oct 30, 2021 at 16:40 UTC |