Re: My hang-up about OOP (snit)

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:09:28 -0300, Luc wrote:

It's hard for me to accept OOP because as hard as I try I really can't
not think that OOP is the Emperor's new clothes.
 
Example from snit:
 
snit::type dog {
    method {tail wag}   {} {return "Wag, wag"} method {tail droop} {}
    {return "Droop, droop"}
}
dog spot puts [spot tail wag]
puts [spot tail droop]
 
 
Why exactly is that any better than this:
 
proc dog {args} {
if {$args == "tail wag"}   {return "Wag, wag"}
if {$args == "tail droop"} {return "Droop, droop"}
}
puts [dog tail wag]
puts [dog tail droop]

Hi Luc,


I understand your feelings, I also don't like OO.
AFAICT, OO was first implemented in Smalltalk by Allan Kay.
But it seems that he is sort of regretful of having called it a Object
Oriented programming language, instead of a Message Passing programming
language.

Other programming languages tried to the the OO thing, but without the
luster of the rest.

I suggest you see some videos about Smalltalk, and even consider doing a
MOOC in Pharo from a french university to have the real feel of it.
https://mooc.pharo.org/

All the best,

Luís