Warp wrote:
>   I have never understood why adding *optional* features, which you are
> in no way forced to use, to something would make it "too complex".

Because you still have to learn these features to understand code that 
someone else has written.

Using the C preprocessor is optional in C. Yet if you don't know how it 
works, you're unable to read 99.44% of all the C code out there.

>> [Obviously I meant "does Pascal count as modular?"]
> 
>   I don't know enough about Pascal to answer that question. (Is there
> a "standard" Pascal language anyways? I have the impression that each
> compiler company has created their own variant of Pascal, and that there's
> no official standard. I may perfectly be wrong, of course.)

There's an official standard, but it was too weak (no modularity, no way 
of (for example) opening a named file, etc) to be useful for work on 
desktop type machines. Worked great on mainframes where you had the JCL 
set up to do stuff like open the files for you.

>> Dynamic binding? Sure. That's the entire purpose.
>> Inheritance? Mmm, not really, no.

>   That's a bit contradictory given that dynamic binding (or its
> alternative, delegation) is inherently related to inheritance.

Not really. Javascript has no inheritance but has dynamic binding. 
Anything with "duck typing" could be said to have dynamic binding 
without requiring inheritance.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message