Re^2: The Basques introduced us to object orientation?

Polymorphism, inheritance, encapsulation and hierarchy I was thinking. With the examples shown in the video, Basque seems to specify the class first and then declares an instance of that class though post-declaration of 'the'. More than that. It also seems to declare 2 classes first and then says what happens to the instance of the subject class. It seems to call objects for both the predeclared classes. I suspect that Basque also allows for multiple inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation and hierarchy. To be honest I don't know, however from the example given it looks like it could do. My first language is English. I tend to think procedurally. Object orientation when applied well (not through Java) seems an ok way to go. English speakers might gravitate to procedural languages though. I suspect that is true for all Indo-European languages. I'm currently experimenting with the idea of learning multiple languages in parallel through cognates. I'm not a linguist, but my mother could speak 8 languages. I'm not quite sure why LanX thinks that I need to be an Anthologist to look into this sort of thing - people should ignore that comment I think.

Comment on Re^2: The Basques introduced us to object orientation?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? by choroba (Cardinal) on Jan 27, 2021 at 20:31 UTC
Postfix articles are common in other languages, too (Albanian, Bulgarian, Danish, Icelandic, Turkish...) There are also languages that don't have articles at all (e.g. Czech, Russian, Latin, Finnish, Chinese...). If we use the metaphor, most programming languages use SVO, not SOV (I'm not sure I've ever seen "instance argument method", but programming languages are weird). Also, in OOP, the method is resolved based on the subject's class, but I'm not sure Basque has different meanings for the same verbs for different classes of nouns (but I can imagine a language like that). Many languages represent linguistic phenomena by different means (e.g. definiteness is expressed by an article in English, by a case in Finnish, by verb conjugation in Hungarian, and by word order in Czech). Programming languages were created by humans who already knew natural languages. They follow and simplify them, so any similarities are easily explained by similarities between human languages. Claiming Basque to be an OO language is a provoking and interesting idea, but I fear it remains a fantasy. `map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]\|\|0,1}[\\|\|{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^ARGV,3]`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? by LanX (Saint) on Jan 27, 2021 at 21:47 UTC
> we use the metaphor, most programming languages use SVO Could you please elaborate? I can only see SVO in OOP like `$subject->verb ($object)` But something like `push @a,$b` is at best VSO for me... (Well actually rather VOO) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? by choroba (Cardinal) on Jan 27, 2021 at 21:52 UTC
> But something like push @a,$b is at best VSO for me It is, but is it OO? It's still not SOV, anyway. `map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]\|\|0,1}[\\|\|{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^ARGV,3]`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? (Update) by LanX (Saint) on Jan 27, 2021 at 22:11 UTC
Re^7: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? (Update) by betmatt (Scribe) on Jan 28, 2021 at 05:38 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^6: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? (Forth) by LanX (Saint) on Jan 27, 2021 at 22:16 UTC
Re^3: The Basques introduced us to object orientation? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jan 27, 2021 at 20:54 UTC
I don't see any evidence that Basque exemplifies those features any more than any other human language. Basque seems to specify the class first and then declares an instance of that class. It also seems to declare 2 classes first and then says what happens to the instance of the subject class. It seems to call objects for both the predeclared classes. You're hallucinating! Pareidolia? Wishful thinking? Whatever.	[reply]


XP is just a number
	PerlMonks