Invisible wrote:

> Just because Java is OOP done wrong, and C++ is a superset of an already 
> complicated language, doesn't mean that OOP is inherantly complex. It's 
> actually quite a food fit for scene description/construction/inspection.

You may be right. The complexity that I see in C++ may derive mainly 
from C. C,
in my experience, is a fascinating and addictive language, but it 
apparently allows,
maybe encourages, writing code so complex as to be almost 
undecipherable. Maybe
it bequeathed that legacy to C++ and other OOP languages and that it is 
really foreign to
OOP. Of course it matters little if OOP is not "inherently" complex if 
all existing instances
  are. The concept of an "object" which contains both data and functions 
which can operate
on the data is itself a useful and valuable, but at present, I see 
little of value in the additional
trappings of OOP. Its not O, but OP that I object to. And I don't really 
see the logic in spending
months preparing to write a program that could be effectively written in 
a simple language -- if such
had survived.

:)

Post a reply to this message