Years ago I tried to go from Procedural Foxpro to Visual Foxpro, and the methods were so different, I told myself that it would be easier to just start from scratch. Later I read articles on the subject, and that was pretty much the consensus for migrating from Procedural IDE's to OOP.
Bob On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Colin Holgate wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: > >> >> Ok you can't use a field, but beyond that? totally working? > > It works with a button, and the plan would be to set the button to be > invisible. It's just a container for handlers, and if it's self sufficient > code it would be a bit like an encapsulated object. > > I've always like the physical object way that HyperCard, Director, LC, and > even Flash can work, but in the world of "real" programming, it's often a > requirement of the job to do things in an OOP way, regardless of whether > there is any value in doing that. In the Flash world a lot of people didn't > jump on ActionScript 3 right away because they were convinced that you could > only use it as OOP, and going from applying non-OOP scripts onto physical > objects, to all external OOP code attached to nothing, was too abstract for > them to deal with. I knew better though, and managed to do some very neat AS3 > things just using non-OOP timeline code. Later I had to get the hang of the > OOP way too, when doing a job where the client demanded that the code be done > that way. > > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
