in reply to Re^2: I dislike object-oriented programming in general
in thread I dislike object-oriented programming in general
Regarding Perl 6, giving you access to everything via objects/classes does not mean requiring you to write everything as objects/classes. I like OO because it provides a simple and effective way to encapsulate data, even provides for encapsulating code, and provides convenient namespaces to avoid name collisions (encapsulating names).1
Sure, many (perhaps most) authors trying to teach OO certainly make too big of a deal of inheritance (and don't teach the pitfalls of overuse of it). And I can see your concern about people trying to make too many or the wrong classes trying to identify the "objects" they are dealing with.
But I don't think "the Larrys" are newbie OO fanboys so I don't expect them to make stupid OO design mistakes. And I don't see the downside to having a unifying "framework" for providing convenient access to methods and attributes of internal components. And the Larrys certainly don't appear to have drunk the "OO koolaid" of the Java designers, trying to deny coders the ability to design in paradigms other than OO. Quite the opposite.
1 Yes, I know about the problems with name collisions in the face of inheritance. I don't use that type of inheritance much and you shouldn't have to either.
- tye
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^4: I dislike object-oriented programming in general (Perl6)
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Oct 18, 2007 at 19:11 UTC |