3 ms·
I couldnt agree more. The first "programs" I ever wrote were BASH scripts. Definitely no OOP distractions there.
by sunsu 16y ago
I couldnt agree more. The first "programs" I ever wrote were BASH scripts. Definitely no OOP distractions there.
- Groxx 16y agoThat's hugely debatable, actually. If you ever called a command-line application in one of those scripts, you called what's essentially an object - it encapsulates its own behavior, hides how it does it, you can create multiple ones (instances) without them competing or sharing information, the command line arguments are arguments to the constructor, etc. They're nearly identical.
- pdenya 16y agoSeems like this logic would apply to any procedural program.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- freedrull 16y agoSeveral posts have mentioned that objects are merely metaphors, and isn't that exactly what you are doing here?
- Groxx 16y agoPretty much. But I see "BASH isn't OO" fairly often, and really? Every process you spawn has its own memory. That's pretty definitively OO.
- jonhohle 16y agoYou're missing message passing (though you can have that with a separate process as well). Something isn't OO just because it has its own memory.
- jpr 16y agoYou have the strangest definition of OO I've yet to come across.
- Groxx 16y agoEncapsulation, abstraction, and per-instance memory? So I'm missing message passing (possible between processes), and...?
- wtallis 16y agoOOP concepts aren't what's getting in the way. It's the boilerplate most languages require for their preferred object systems. A good language for beginners would have to make it easy to progressively encapsulate things as the program grows, without requiring substantial rewrites. It should be very easy to go from a few named variables to an array or dictionary, and then to add methods to that to make it a proper class.
- swift 16y agoSounds like JavaScript or Lua.