On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:45:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:00:43PM +0100, Zero wrote:
Hello!
I've recently started to work with D, and I'll start a bigger
project soon, using it. For a few days I've been thinking
about the
approach I'll take here, and since I
Many reasons why non-OOP methodology creates problems come from how
scoping works in a language. In C, there's one global name-space, so
declaring functions anywhere can lead to major problems: unexpected
dependencies, unclear sequence of execution, aberrant mutations, name-space
conflicts,
On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, foobar wrote:
...
1. D templates are an enhanced version of C++ templates which are a poor
design. The problem stems IMO not from issues with OOP but rather with
the horrible idea of C++-like templates. Other languages have *much*
better solutions which integrate better.
foobar:
1. D templates are an enhanced version of C++ templates which are
a poor design. The problem stems IMO not from issues with OOP but
rather with the horrible idea of C++-like templates. Other
languages have *much* better solutions which integrate better.
C++ is one of the most
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:35:37 UTC, bearophile wrote:
foobar:
1. D templates are an enhanced version of C++ templates which
are a poor design. The problem stems IMO not from issues with
OOP but rather with the horrible idea of C++-like templates.
Other languages have *much*
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:35:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, foobar wrote:
...
1. D templates are an enhanced version of C++ templates which
are a poor
design. The problem stems IMO not from issues with OOP but
rather with
the horrible idea of C++-like templates.
On 02/15/2012 09:17 PM, foobar wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:35:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, foobar wrote:
...
1. D templates are an enhanced version of C++ templates which are a poor
design. The problem stems IMO not from issues with OOP but rather with
the
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 20:55:47 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
snip
Lisp/scheme macros come to mind :)
=D. I actually thought about explicitly excluding those to get
a more meaningful answer. Using runtime code modification is
cheating.
There are certainly ways to dynamically dispatch,
Hello!
I've recently started to work with D, and I'll start a bigger
project soon, using it. For a few days I've been thinking about
the approach I'll take here, and since I don't /have/ to use full
OOP in D, I was wondering... how crazy is it to not use full OP
nowadays?
Naturally one
IMO, what would be stupid is that everything has to be object
oriented.
You have problems where OOP is good, and other where it isn't.
Use the tool that fit what you want to accomplish.
Screwdriver are great, but are useless when you are dealing with
a nail.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:00:43PM +0100, Zero wrote:
Hello!
I've recently started to work with D, and I'll start a bigger
project soon, using it. For a few days I've been thinking about the
approach I'll take here, and since I don't /have/ to use full OOP in
D, I was wondering... how crazy
On 02/14/2012 11:06 PM, deadalnix wrote:
IMO, what would be stupid is that everything has to be object oriented.
You have problems where OOP is good, and other where it isn't. Use the
tool that fit what you want to accomplish.
Screwdriver are great, but are useless when you are dealing with a
On 02/14/2012 11:00 PM, Zero wrote:
Hello!
I've recently started to work with D, and I'll start a bigger project
soon, using it. For a few days I've been thinking about the approach
I'll take here, and since I don't /have/ to use full OOP in D, I was
wondering... how crazy is it to not use full
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
It does not hurt at all if your code base is more flexible than
necessary.
[...]
This needs to be taken in moderation, though.
I've had to work with code that was unnecessarily flexible. (I.e.,
over-engineered.) So flexible, in
On 15 February 2012 12:12, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
It does not hurt at all if your code base is more flexible than
necessary.
[...]
This needs to be taken in moderation, though.
I've had to work with code
On 02/15/2012 12:12 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
It does not hurt at all if your code base is more flexible than
necessary.
[...]
This needs to be taken in moderation, though.
I've had to work with code that was unnecessarily
H. S. Teoh:
I mean, if you take OO to the extreme, that would require excluding all
those evil procedural constructs like if statements and for loops, and
write everything in terms of invoking object methods... like this
monstrosity:
class MyClass {
void myMethod() {
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 06:42:02PM -0500, bearophile wrote:
H. S. Teoh:
I mean, if you take OO to the extreme, that would require excluding all
those evil procedural constructs like if statements and for loops, and
write everything in terms of invoking object methods... like this
18 matches
Mail list logo
