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.

--
Alex

Articles based on solutions that I use:
http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"