RE: Using OO concepts in RPG

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Hans
>
> Joe: Don't take anything you read here personally. Life's too
> short to take
> anything too seriously!

<laughing> I only took it a little bit personally, Hans.  Primarily because
there are plenty of times when I'm being abrasive that you can find good
reason to verbally spar with me.  But this time I was just asking for some
input, that's all.  And then perhaps to make an attempt to prototype some of
the features.


> I'm not opposed to adding any feature of an OO language into RPG. For
> example, procedure name overloading is a feature of certain OO languages,
> and that's something we've been kicking around. Perhaps some day
> something like that will make it into the language. (Don't hold your
> breath, though.)

> All I've said is that we need some really darn good reason to go all the
> way to full OO, and I don't thinks that's going to happen.

And I've never said go all the way to full OO.  I put inheritance on the
list for a point of discussion.  It can be done, but in most cases the
limited utility of inheritance in the application development space makes it
a lot more costly than its worth.

On the other hand, indirect procedure calls are a very nice thing and can
make for some very powerful coding - much more "dynamic", if you will
<grin>.


> Well, now there's an issue we both agree on! ;-)

Most of the time, Hans, we agree as much as we disagree.  I just called you
on your blanket endorsement of Booth's statement.  I HOPE you don't think of
RPG as just a report generator, because I don't really want to see you leave
the team; your contributions have no doubt been important and varied.

But if you do think RPG is nothing but a report generator, then I stand by
my statement.

Joe