•Re: Re: •Re: More discipline or more freedom

Well, in Perl, every line of code has to be inside some package. I don't see why Java earns a special bump up for such a distinction.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Comment on •Re: Re: •Re: More discipline or more freedom - in the context of OO

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: •Re: Re: •Re: More discipline or more freedom - in the context of OO by Jenda (Abbot) on Oct 15, 2003 at 22:29 UTC
I'd rather say "bump down" ;-) The point is that packages in Perl do not have to have anything to do with objects. They can be just namespaces. Maybe it's a little hard to define the distinction between group 2) and 3), but as I understand it the distinction is "do you HAVE to use objects? Do even things that have no point whatsoever to ever be objects HAVE to be objects?" Jenda Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Rick Osborne Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: •Re: Re: •Re: More discipline or more freedom - in the context of OO
by Jenda (Abbot) on Oct 15, 2003 at 22:29 UTC

I'd rather say "bump down" ;-)

The point is that packages in Perl do not have to have anything to do with objects. They can be just namespaces. Maybe it's a little hard to define the distinction between group 2) and 3), but as I understand it the distinction is "do you HAVE to use objects? Do even things that have no point whatsoever to ever be objects HAVE to be objects?"

Jenda
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
-- Rick Osborne

Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature

[reply]