On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:54:12PM -0500, Greg Pavelcak wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:59:42PM -0500, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> > Bill Moran wrote:
> > > I've always had a uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach that C++
> > > and other OO languages were more complicated than they needed to be.

> >
> > I could never get figure out C++, the syntax was too complex for me,
> > maybe I never approached it the right way. (Same problem with perl.)
> >
> > On the other hand, a few months ago I tried out python and it was love
> > at first sight. Initially I was writing stuff in a procedural way but
> > I'm beginning to grok OO ideas now and it seems to all just make sense.
> > I wish there was a good compiler for it though, speed is important in a
> > lot of the things I do. Subsequently, I also dabbled in lisp a bit,
> > does anyone use it these days for serious new projects (as opposed to
> > emacs/maxima/other ancient stuff)?
> >
> > Quoted on http://www.smalltalk.org :
> >
> > "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
> > C++ in mind." - Alan Kay
> >
> > - Rahul

> I'm a non-programmer. Is it the OO languages that talk about
> "methods" when it looks like they're talking about something like
> functions, or is that something else?

You are correct. In OO languages the function and data are one unit
where as in the the traditional programma there are seperate.


Articles based on solutions that I use:
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"