Re: OO is not that great: many repeated codes

topmind wrote:
Java is hardly a good role model here. Forcing everything to be a member of
a class is not the same thing as enabling elegant code.

It appears that you are agreeing with the original claim that sometimes
procedural is less code than OO. Java is "bad" because it forces every
function to be a member of a class (or object)

Objects and classes are different things.

And yes, to many OO programmers Java is "bad" (or at least sub-optimal)
because it encourages everything to be part of a class; to a Smalltalk
or Python programmer, forcing everything to be in a class is very far
from what OO is about. There is a very large segment of "pure OO"
advocates who aren't big fans of the C++/Java-style class-oriented
verbosity.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OO is not that great: many repeated codes
    ... a class is not the same thing as enabling elegant code. ... It depends on the language and which definition of OO one is using. ... to many OO programmers Java is "bad" ... can shoehorn it into an object, but anything can be shoehorned with ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: OO is not that great: many repeated codes
    ... a class is not the same thing as enabling elegant code. ... It appears that you are agreeing with the original claim that sometimes ... Dynamic languages tend to make less distinction between classes and ... Java sucks, lets move on. ...
    (comp.object)