RE: Please vote for Syntax check in /FREE!

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Hans Boldt

| jt: Others have addressed your other points nicely.

Somehow your vision of "nicely" differs from mine, considerably...;-)

| This is really
| the only point I'd like to address.

|
| First, as I've mentioned before, I have no desire to see RPG turned
| into a second rate object-oriented language.

Hans, I wish I could get this one point across:  RPG never WAS a second-rate
language, just like the 400 never WAS (and ISN'T) a second-rate Server.

Only in the minds of some.

|
| Second, if you think adding procedure overloading brings RPG one
| step closer to being an OO language, I'm afraid you just don't
| understand OO design. Overloading may well be a feature of some
| particular OO languages, but the presence of such a feature is not a
| requirement of OO.

Overloading is a feature of *most all* OO languages, unless I'm mistaken
(and I may be).  Now, from a strictly technical DEFINITION of OO languages,
I'm sure you're correct that it is not a REQUIREMENT.  So, if RPG had
operator overloading, would (or would it not) be an OO language...??

All that merely evades discussion of my point, however, which is:  Why does
RPG need to become OO in the first place.  See Mr. Greenspun's article on
Java, if you didn't.