somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I tend to agree with you. A procedural library with proper standards and
> documentation is much easier to use *and* extend. Problem with OO is just
> what you mention, "anticipation". If the authord of an OO library did not
> anticipate a usage pattern that you wish to employ, it's
> unusable/unextendable at worst, and inefficient at best.

  Uh. Basically you are saying "a well-designed procedural library is much
better than a badly-designed OO library". Well, duh.

  Obviously we should compare well-designed procedural libraries with
well-designed OO libraries.

> OOP is only an improvement over using global variables in procedural
> programming. It's *not* an improvement over procedural programming. If one
> can wrap everything in procedures, that's the ideal, if you ask me.

  Exactly how would you implement, for example, a linked list or a binary
tree without using any objects?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message