|
This has certainly gone far afield. It's now more of an abstract
discussion that has run much of its course. Let me just expound
on a few places where you seems to be confused or surprised
by my positions. After that, the air is starting to get very thin :).
It's easier to change in a procedural system. Data hiding makes
wholesale systemic changes harder. That's my bottom line and I'm
sticking to it! <grin>
Sicne OO models the real world and procedural code simply
denotes business rules, the changes in procedural code are
easier.
I know this seems counter-intuitive, but in my experience the
closer a system models the real world, the harder it is to
change when the real world changes.
Do you not consider prototype-based OO "real OO"? Also,
[...] not all class-based languages encourage the same OO
style as Java.
I guess I limit myself by my perspective: business applications. I
would never write a business application in JavaScript, which is a
pretty prototype-based language.
And OO is not all that fuzzy to me: inheritance and
polymorphism do most of it for me.
Then to return to my world, the IBM i, I basically have RPG and
Java. And in a pinch, PHP, although I don't consider it supported
the same way I consider RPG and Java to be supported.
We also have a variety of other languages, including COBOL,
C and C++, but really we're talking RPG vs. Java [...].
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.