On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Martin Schreiber <mse00...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Classes should not exists in object-oriented programming. This is a >> mistake. Only objects should exists. > > In MSElang "class" = "^object" on heap. So you mean there should be no object > heap pointers but stack allocated objects only? I probably misunderstood.
No. I'm talking just about design concepts. I want to work with objects. If they are created in heap or not, I don't care. But... forget that. This concept will change all in MSElang. About your design, if "class" = "^object", why do not keep only one? Using your syntax, I propose this: 1. TObj = object [static] << this is like record 2. TObj = object [dynamic] << this is like class But a clean syntax that is much BETTER is only: TObj = object ...and the compiler should know if that should be on heap or not. For me, every object is a "dynamic" instance. I don't work with records. Another questions: 1. "Methods can be virtual, interfaces are listed after the possible ancestor." obj6ty = object(obj5ty,testintf) [virtual] method donothing() [virtual]; end; Q: to make virtual methods , I need to declare the "object" [virtual] at first? 2. "Virtual object not initialized with zeros." obj4ty = object [virtual,nozeroinit] private ffield1: int32; method getfield1(): int32; method setfield1(const avalue: int32); public method dosomething() [virtual]; property field1 read getfield1 write setfield1; end; Q: What is the point about "nozeroinit"? What the advantages? 3. Ancestor class: obj9ty = object(,testintf) [virtual] //no ancestor Q: Why this ugly syntax? You are simplifying some Pascal syntax (eg: every line should have a ";", every block has an "end", etc) but here you are committing a mistake, IMHO. If you allow this: obj4ty = object" << without ancestor you should allow this: obj9ty = object(testintf) << not an acestor, but an interface ...and the compiler should know that is an interface, not a class. >> I'm following and participate (more or less) of a new language called >> EO https://github.com/yegor256/eo that do not have classes, NULL and >> other things that should not exists in OOP. >> > That looks a little bit abstract to me. A general purpose programming language > should be handy and not necessarily academically clean. I pointed this project as an example about concepts that are truly object-oriented. One of them is: no class, just objects. I tried to propose a more Pascalish syntax, but they didn't accept all my ideas, unfortunately. Best regards, Marcos Douglas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list mseide-msegui-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
