in reply to Re: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs
in thread Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs

Well, I do have a soft spot in my heart for that style of language, having once upon a time hacked in (and on) a language called Dungeon Definition Language. I've also once wrote a "dungeon" in Prolog, though it was actually a space ship...

It would be relatively easy to define objects in Perl 6 with a role or set of roles that define spatial relationships, and those roles can mix in various one-to-many relationships, so it'd be pretty easy to do physical containment and delegation to contained or nearby items. Perl 6 is not intended to match up exactly with every problem domain. It's merely intended to be easily mutable into a different language (also called Perl 6) that matches up with your current problem domain. At worst you'd have to say "use Physical;" at the top of your program, or some such.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Coding styles: OOP vs. Subs
by john_oshea (Priest) on Nov 16, 2005 at 22:14 UTC

    Hey. No fair. I thought I'd done a thorough job of purging the musical "works" of Olivia Newton-John from my brain...