Re: OO is not that great: many repeated codes

topmind wrote:
sjdevnull@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.

It depends on the language and which definition of OO one is using.
Dynamic languages tend to make less distinction between classes and
objects. A "dynamic class" usually looks so much like an object that
one might as well make them an object to simplify the language rather
than support two almost-the-same things.

....called prototype-based languages. Self, NewtonScript, io, ...

Java sucks, lets move on.


Mike
.