Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: "Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:54:48 GMT
"Abigail" <abigail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrneluumh.bt.abigail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Arved Sandstrom (asandstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote on MMMMDCCCXXVII
September MCMXCIII in <URL:w6D7h.11870$gy2.6058@edtnps90">news:w6D7h.11870$gy2.6058@edtnps90>:
()
() I'd be interested to hear why you think OO Perl is not worth bothering
with.
OOP doesn't have object attributes natively. The programmer has to
build this him/herself.
And that's the root of evilness in Perls OO.
I cringe a bit when the term "native" comes up, because it means so many
different things in programming. But I will assume that by "native" object
attributes you mean that there is a way, in the language, of syntactically
distinguishing the fields of the object that are logical attributes from
those that are not (and are just implementation details).
In other words, how much built-in support is there in the language for
encapsulation. Which in turn leads to so much else in OOP.
Am I reading you correctly?
AHS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: anno4000
- Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: Abigail
- Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- References:
- Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: Merrilee Larson
- Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: Abigail
- Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: Arved Sandstrom
- Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- From: Abigail
- Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- Prev by Date: Re: Add numbers in a string
- Next by Date: Fetching input character without newline?
- Previous by thread: Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- Next by thread: Re: Do I *have* to use 'OOP' to use modules?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|