RE: OOing RPG was RE: open source rpg compiler

> From: Walden H. Leverich III
>
> I must disagree on two points. First, some members on this list have,
> obvious, input into the direction and capabilities of RPG, and to
> that end a
> conversation about the possible capabilities of the language are important
> and topical. Afterall, if we don't express our desires and leave
> it to Hans
> we'll all be coding free-form RPG that looks like Python <G>

The problem here is that general discussions of OO inevitably turn into
philosophical discussions which, IMO, are better left to another list.
Maybe you can create an "RPG futures" list, or a "language architecture"
list, both of which would welcome these sorts of discussions comparing C++
and Java.  But this is not the list for those discussions.

My opinion.