Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language)

On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 09:57 , Keith Gaughan wrote:

> Ray Brown wrote:
>> set of objects sharing similar properties & methods. But - {blushes
>> deeply}
>> - if I had stopped to think about it, Javascript could not have formal
>> classes because it is such a weakly typed language. (Darned scripting
>> languages  :)
>>
>> OK - Philippe, if your only experience of using objects is JavaScript,
>> maybe we had better not continue using the class ~ object analogy
>> otherwise we are very likely to be talking at cross-purposes, which won'
>> t
>> help anybody.
>
> Oh, for the time!
Amen!! I'm busier now I'm retired than I have been for many a year.

> JavaScript uses prototype-based OO, unlike the
> class-based OO of most languages. The thing about POP is that it's
> far more powerful and flexible than classed-based OO.
My "darned scripting languages" was not meant to be serious.

I certainly wasn't intending to imply that strict typing & formal classes
were better (or worse) per_se than any other type of approach. My main
purpose was simply to point out that I had not done my homework, so to
speak, and when I woke up to the fact that 'class' in Java & C++ has a
different meaning from the informal use of class that Philippe has
probably come across with Javascript, I thought it best to point out that
we are probably talking at cross purposes here.

I can well believe POP is more flexible and powerful. I still remember how,
  many years ago, I was really excited when I discovered Prolog - and that
language is about as untyped as it's possible to get. One of the things I
really liked about Prolog was its flexibility & power. Indeed, of all the
languages I've used, Prolog still remains the one I most enjoyed using.

> I don't have a lot of time to go into it. But I'll say that it's a
> really bad idea to try and program JavaScript like a class-based
> language.
That I will not dispute for one moment. IME it is always a bad idea to try
and program a language designed one basis in terms another with a
different basis, sort of like programming (logic-based) Prolog as tho it
was (procedural) Pascal - which I have seen, ach!!! It usually does mean..
...

> While you can, you end up missing out on a lot of the power
> it has hidden within.
Exactly.

> Off the top of my head, I'd so say read the
> following:
URLs snipped - but thanks, I'll try to make time to read some :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO				September, 2004

Reply