Or, maybe, all languages in the second category allow freedom of expression, but some freedoms are more expressive than others. (Or, is it some expressions are freer than others?)
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.
The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6
... strings and arrays will suffice. As they are easily available as native data types in any sane language, ... - blokhead, speaking on evolutionary algorithms
Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.
| [reply] |
I don't think we can put Ruby in group 3 either --- while everything
is indeed an object, the way Ruby is designed supports programming
in a non--OO manner (even if there are objects behind the scenes).
| [reply] |
Well, that'd rule out Smalltalk and Eiffel then too, if that's your standard. Nothing at all would be in the third category. {grin}
| [reply] |
This stands true, if you look at it from application programmer’s view. In Java, you are forced to put each line of your code inside some class. | [reply] |
Well, in Perl, every line of code has to be inside some package. I don't see why Java earns a special bump up for such a distinction.
| [reply] |
I'd rather say "bump down" ;-)
The point is that packages in Perl do not have to have anything to do with objects. They can be just namespaces. Maybe it's a little hard to define the distinction between group 2) and 3), but as I understand it the distinction is "do you HAVE to use objects? Do even things that have no point whatsoever to ever be objects HAVE to be objects?"
Jenda
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code
will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
-- Rick Osborne
Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature
| [reply] |
