From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-04-18T06:06:22+09:00
Subject: Re: IDEs, syntactic vs. semantic highlighting, etc.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:45:22AM +0900, Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
> On 16-Apr-07, at 8:53 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >That's really saying some awful things about Java -- not that I'm
> >all that surprised.  Perl's OO is ugly as sin (and I'm a fan of Perl,
> >saying this).  Sure, it's not as awful as PHP's and VB's OOP features,
> >but it's not exactly elegant by any stretch.
> >
> >I must agree that, judging by my own experience, Ruby really does get
> >object oriented programming substantially "right".
> 
> Without hijacking this thread and making it about prototype  
> languages, I really do find statements like this cute (not  
> necessarily funny, but cute). While Ruby's Classes (and Smalltalk's  
> too) are just objects, it seems weird to me to separate the two  
> concepts. So any statement like that makes me wonder what kind of  
> exposure to object-oriented languages one has--or rather, lack of  
> exposure to many.

That sounds slightly condescending.

I haven't dealt with object oriented programming in a great many
languages.  I've run up against it in C++, Object Pascal, Objective C,
PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, and VB, at least.  I may have forgotten a
couple.  I happen to like Ruby's more than Obj-C's, which I tend to like
more than that of any of the rest of the languages I've mentioned (as
far as I recall -- I don't remember OOP in Object Pascal much, for
instance).  I like the general structure of OOP in Python more than any
of the rest of them except Ruby, but I dislike Python in general, so it
loses out.

Does that give you a clearer idea of where my comments are arising?

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure of a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley