On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Adam Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I approached this purely from an OO design perspective without regard to
> the language much less the implementation.
I *do* recommend learning true OO style in a pure-OO environment
(somewhere were 1 and 0 are objects responding to methods natively, not via
magic wrappers), same as Functional style is easier learned in a pure
Functional style.
In the '80s, I did a project in C, then one in Smalltalk, then one in
Objective-C, Gemstone Opal SmallTalk+OODB, and only then decades of C++ and
Perl. (We won't mention Lisp and Prolog mixed in there.)
Objective-C can be see as an embedding of Smalltalk expressions into a
C host language, so it's very obvious which code bits are OO and which code
bits are classic procedural. C++ and Perl5 'native objects' re-using
indirect access syntax for OO make the separation *harder*, so having
either as anyone's first (or pedagogic) OO language is just asking for
trouble.
For pure OO experimentation, grab a FLOSS SmallTalk.
Last I heard, that would be likely be Squeak.org, but there's also Pharo
and a Gnu cli version ("SmallTalk for people who can type") and ... . See
http://blog.smartbear.com/devops/todays-smalltalk-a-second-look-at-the-first-oo-language/
(There was NOT even a single FLOSS one when I was learning OO.)
--
Bill Ricker
[email protected]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
