Re: RPGV?

Bryce Martin wrote:

So you want RPG to go OO?

This is essentially what you'll get if you allow procedure overloading and
namespaces. At least you'll have almost all the language construct to
make it happen. Coming from C/C++ in all my time in highschool and
college and then learning Java as well I'm quite fond of OO and really
miss it, so it wouldn't be so bad for me :D

I'm just wondering how the RPG lifers feel about this. Without a
background in an OO language I would think many RPGers would be a bit lost
with Namespaces and Procedure overloading... just as most have bucked the
idea of Modules/Service Progams. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I
very much support it, but I just hope everyone realizes that it'll be
another one of those 30% adoption situations again (or whatever the case
is for service programs).

My last four years at IBM, I worked on the PL/X compiler. The language
started out as a procedural language, and later, OO was tacked on.

I would not wish that language onto my biggest enemies.

I greatly fear that if OO were tacked onto RPG, RPG would become like PL/X.

In my opinion, if you want to do OO programming, do it with a language
where OO was built in right from the start.

I've said this before, if you want to learn OO, start with Python. It
has a very easy, yet powerful object model. Once you learn what OO is
all about, then move onto a compiled OO language, like Java.

What about C#? My opinion is that the language designers at Microsoft
looked at all possible OO language features, couldn't agree on which
were important, and then decided to include them all.

Cheers! Hans