From: Sean Chittenden <sean-ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2001-07-24T05:15:54+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:18379] Re: OO question


--JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Someone please tell me if this is an inappropriate question for this list=
 -
> I don't want to irritate or offend anyone here.
> What is the benefit of a true object-oriented language (Ruby), in which
> everything is an object, as opposed to, say (arbitrarily) a language that=
 is
> not strictly object-oriented (yet is still popular) like Java?
>=20
> Forgive the newbie his ignorance  =3D)

	You're forgiven, but I can't speak for the rest of the folks on=20
the list.  ;~)

	Two big points come to mind:

	1)  Big projects.  Because everything is encapsulated in bite
(byte?) sized functionality, you can divvy out the workload easily and=20
test the components very easily.

	2)  Similar to point 1, code reuse.  Because you have an
abstract set of layers, you can pass out simple API trees and have=20
developers re-use various parts of a system.

	There are many more reasons, but those are the two biggies that=20
I always cite when someone asks, but your milage may vary depending on=20
the project and group of people that you're working with.  <:~)  -sc

--=20
Sean Chittenden

--JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>

iEYEARECAAYFAjtchfMACgkQn09c7x7d+q2N8gCfXtfErsjQ4SZQvnNU1wCjW+JM
la4AoL7oB9kaMwcE6cNQLXAtSazKvGnt
=I98K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg--