Steve Litt wrote:
> > Then there's OOP. My opinion: OOP didn't achieve our expectations for
> > it, it's often misused, it's vastly misunderstood.

In which language? Whose expectations?
Probably you never used OO much, or had problems
that OO is well suited to solving.

To say that the ability to apply a method to an
object offers nothing valuable over a simple subroutine call
is missing a lot I think.

OO has made it possible for me to structure and refactor a
medium-size codebase that was procedural before. The ideas
of instantiating and destroying objects are easily made
explicit in OO. Statements like my $object = $class->new()
and $object->DESTROY are quite expressive. More recently, an
OO concept called traits (or roles) has made it possible for
me to reduce classes into smaller blocks of code. Traits can
be used to avoid multiple inheritance.


Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> ACK. I really wonder what [OO is] actually useful for ...

Well, you mention composition as an alternative to
inheritance, but isn't that still classes, methods and objects?

Joel

>
> --mtx
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

--
Joel Roth