On May 2, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
Setting those aside, Rev lacks several characteristics most people consider inherent to OO. That doesn't make it bad or good, necessarily.
When this thread started, my reaction was because of these missing characteristics, I would have said that Rev is not OO except in a way that doesn't reflect the general benefits of OOP. But the more I think about it, with the benefit of the comments here, I've come to the conclusion that while it is missing some OO characteristics, it also possesses some very significant features that are missing from languages that are considered (at least by some) to be more traditionally OO. Specifically, the more I use Objective C with its dynamic messaging, which is very similar in many ways to Rev's messaging, the more I realize C++'s lacks in this regard. For another example, one cannot write handlers except in the context of an object: an instance of a button, a group, a card, a stack, or whatever; it simply doesn't permit non-OO programming.
Having said all that, it really doesn't matter and as you say, none of this is, in itself, good or bad. Rev (and it's related environments such as HC, SC, etc.) can't even be analyzed using traditional computer science analysis. It's just different which is what makes it so damn great!
Spence
James P. Spencer Rochester, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Badges?? We don't need no stinkin badges!"
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
