Rogers and BitTorrent: another datapoint

[Michael MacLeod]

So let me get this straight... you rate OO languages based on your ability
to write procedural code in them?

On 10/27/06, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:45:33AM -0700, Matthew Godycki wrote:
> > I hate to say this, but it sounds like all these problems would have
> been solved
> > by consulting some documentation.  As an aside, why is it stupid to
> define a
> > class (template for an object) in an OO language?  If that's the case,
> then defining
> > a procedure in a procedural language is equally stupid.
> >
> > As an aside, Java as a language is actually very stable.  All the
> various revisions
> > have to do more with the additional packages evolving, moreso than the
> language
> > itself.  That in itself is a whole other issue, SUN seems inept at
> keeping the
> > language and libraries separate from one another.
>
> Perhaps because I know OO isn't the catch all solution to everything, I
> fail to see the point in having a language that can't do anything
> without using objects/classes for it.  Originally I mainly hated the
> virtual machine concept, but eventually native compilers came about.
> Virtual machines are too inefficient and mainly make sense when you
> don't know what the archtecture is going to be.  Most programs you know
> are going to run on a specific architecture, so you should simply
> compile it for that and not some stupid, bloated, inefficient virtual
> machine.
>
> You can work with objective C without using objects.  It has a rather
> nice object system, but you don't have to use it.  You can work in C++
> without using objects.  It has an OK object system byt you don't have to
> use it.  You can work with OCAML without using objects, you basically
> use just CAML, which is a very nice version of ML and an awsome
> procedural language, but again you don't have to use objects.  Perl has
> a lousy object system, but you don't have to use it to do useful stuff.
> Modula3 has a rather nice object system, but you can do lots of nice
> code without using them.
>
> Java has an OK object system (it originally borrowed a lot from c++,
> including some things they should have.  Java2 seems to have fixed a lot
> of those problems with the new interfaces system).  You can't do
> anything in java without objects.
>
> And yes SUN does a lot of stupid stuff.  They can't seem to figure out
> versions numbers at all.  I thought after the Solaris mess they had
> learned, but no they did the same thing with java.  So version 1.4 is
> java2 and 1.5 if java5 or is it 2.0 is java5 while 1.4 was java2?  What?
> Seems a lot like Sunos 4 was solaris 1 and Sunos 5.x was solaris 2.x but
> then solaris 2.7 was solaris 7 or sunos 5.7.  Someone at SUN is
> obviously insane. :)
>
> --
> Len Sorensen
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20061027/b405a48e/attachment.html>