RE: It's That Time Again! The 2002 RPG Enhancement Poll

<snip>This is a good idea, not because it *might* get us a little bit of
the way towards OO (which I don't think is a good idea for RPG,
BTW), but because of the issue of name-space collision, as
demonstrated by your example.
</snip>

I may be applying the name OO incorrectly then, because I strongly think
that RPG needs to be more OO.  What I mean to say is that OO languages have
much better capabilities than what RPG currently offers when you want to
develop more abstract systems and develop for reuse.  The addition of being
able to overload (which is on the ballot) will be incredibly great, and this
would be one of the things that I am talking about when saying RPG needs to
be more OO.  I know everyone and their mother has a different definition for
OO so I will make sure to clarify from now on.

When you say OO is a bad place for RPG why is that?  Just wondering.

If somebody tells me to just drop RPG and use Java if I want OO I won't
listen to them because there is some stuff that is easier to do in RPG than
Java, and it is hard to give up how close RPG is to the OS, IMO.  That is
why if RPG could gain some of the OO functionality (whatever that may mean
to you) I feel would be a step in the right direction and make RPG's life
more permanent.


Aaron Bartell