View Poll Results: Should OOP be in every new language??

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, OOP is aboslutely important in developing any new language

    6 27.27%
  • No, new languages could be popular and live long-time without OOP

    16 72.73%

Should OOP be any new language priority??

This is a discussion on Should OOP be any new language priority?? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ Where is this magical land of happiness and rainbows? You call code where every function is ...

  1. #46
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ View Post
    Where is this magical land of happiness and rainbows?
    You call code where every function is written in a different style and there is absolutely no consistency "happiness"?
    I call it chaotic.
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  2. #47
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    You call code where every function is written in a different style and there is absolutely no consistency "happiness"?
    I call it chaotic.
    Yes, the people of Toronto will be much happier whey they *all* obey the dress code and curfew xP
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  3. #48
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    Then you have totally missed my point. If I'm not allowed to use the language however I want, then what is the point of having a language that lets me use it however I want? You might as well pick a more restrictive language and allow the language itself to restrict the programming style.
    The point is that different companies can use different styles, but still use the same language. So people can migrate very easily and just a moment after listening the restrictions in the new company they can start writing code, just maybe in a little bit different way.

    Seriously, you sound like your whole life involves only one software project in one company. Are you saying we shouldn't have general purpose languages?

    And also, if everyone thought like you, every company would develop a programming language of their own to suit their style.
    Last edited by maxorator; 06-10-2009 at 04:02 PM.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  4. #49
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussain Hani View Post
    Do you think OOP is a must in every new language??
    In other words, if you were developing a new language, would OOP be on your toplist??

    I think yes, OOP is important in every language, even if it is optional.
    I think new languages without OOP (if any available) won't live long
    The original question says nothing about "general purpose" programming languages; it says EVERY new programming language.

    If I was developing a new programming language, I would add features that help solve the tasks that the language was originally intended for. So if I was writing yet another Java-like language, obviously OOP would be required, but if I was writing a very simple scripting language, adding OOP would increase the development time & cost of the language, add more bugs to the compiler/interpreter, increase the learning curve, and provide little benefit if most of the scripts that it is intended for are very short.
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  5. #50
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,014
    But, on the other hand, you might just make some more people happy that their favorite style os programming is in there.
    I don't think there needs to be a lot of advanced features, just some OOP-oriented ones.
    Because, again, you never know the mind the user/programmer, so... why not try to please?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Because if you add all the features anyone asked for, you would end up with a very complex, very hard to learn, very buggy, and very slow language that no one will use.

    IMHO much better to do one (or a few) things, and do them well.

  7. #52
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    But, on the other hand, you might just make some more people happy that their favorite style os programming is in there.
    I don't think there needs to be a lot of advanced features, just some OOP-oriented ones.
    Because, again, you never know the mind the user/programmer, so... why not try to please?
    If users really demand it, you could add OOP to the language later (if you left that door open when designing the language). But you need to focus on getting the language stable and working first, and create something that does what most people need. Designing software is all about deciding what features go into the product and what can wait for a later release.
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  8. #53
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,014
    Oh, sure, I can agree with that.
    But I would believe that OOP would be part of the original language design plans, so that it will make it into the language at one point or another when it's finished.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  9. #54
    Banned ಠ_ಠ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Because if you add all the features anyone asked for, you would end up with a very complex, very hard to learn, very buggy, and very slow language that no one will use.

    IMHO much better to do one (or a few) things, and do them well.
    java?
    ╔╗╔══╦╗
    ║║║╔╗║║
    ║╚╣╚╝║╚╗
    ╚═╩══╩═╝

  10. #55
    Disrupting the universe Mad_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    258
    First off I am going to go ahead and say that I voted 'no'.

    Primarily because I think this question is so vague that it really isn't indicative of anything regardless of results (unless the result you're looking for is "which is cooler according to the people on this board,") and further more because it doesn't really acknowledge or look at any of the specifics or thought that goes into things like programming language design - things which may make it either infeasible or simply stupid to bolt-on something like object-oriented capabilities to your language.

    Second reason for voting no - because I (personally) don't think the CS world needs any more cargo-cult thinking than [I personally think] it already has. Many programmers these days seem woefully underexposed to the 'big picture' of computing and different thought processes, plenty of universities seem simply like vocational Java schools, and people, not just programmers, are really quick to draw conclusions without much thought. My fundamental problem is really that people just want answers and are afraid to ask questions, when need be (or something.)

    You ask me whether or not OO-facilities should be in every new language? I don't really know, that's a pretty arbitrary question - why should it be apart of every language? Should the US build a wall on the border of Mexico? I don't know, why the hell do we need a wall there in the first place?

    Everybody is really fast to answer with a 'yes', 'no' or 'I'm not totally sure', but nobody really wants to evaluate the question itself and look at its existence: the question seems to imply OOP as a 'solution' of some sort - but for what problems? I can't really tell, because it doesn't really make sense either way.

    So, no, I don't think OOP should be apart of every language. Technically I don't think so because design constraints, like I said, may make it simply infeasible or stupid to add. Socially I don't think so because if nothing else that just enforces the groupthink that "we are right, you all suck" amongst the ignorant masses, which nobody wants. Logically I don't think so because I can't see how that would really 'fix' anything, or, well, really do anything at all, for any logical reason.

    But, on the other hand, you might just make some more people happy that their favorite style os programming is in there.
    Realistically speaking, if people even care about your programming language/tool or want to use it at that point, they're probably either already involved in development or are going to get involved in it.

    That's largely how the open source model works, FWIW: you put stuff out that works for you, and it almost works for other people. So the other people get frustrated and start to make it work for them, too. If it's not immediately useful, even to you, then it's almost certainly over-designed, so if OOP isn't really useful, why put it there?
    operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
    editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
    version control: git

    website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/

  11. #56
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,014
    You are overly negative.
    Do people complain because templates are part of C++? No? Then why would they complain about something optional in another language?
    Also, this assumes everything added to the language has been well-implemented.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #57
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    If you don't have objects, you better have structs.

    If you program with structs, it would be silly to say that programming with objects is not inherently easier. What's wrong with easier?
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  13. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    I'm with Mad_guy. I don't see how OO makes things better in any way, when considering inheritance and polymorphism. So I don't see it necessary.

  14. #59
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    I'm with Mad_guy. I don't see how OO makes things better in any way, when considering inheritance and polymorphism. So I don't see it necessary.
    Possibly this is a narrow vision of OO derived exclusively from some specific language or languages, because IMO inheritance and polymorphism are non-essential aspects, which are useful, but most of the time do not or should not require any consideration. So if you are saying that inheritance and polymorphism are unnecessary complications, I have to assume you are talking some specific form of OO. Ie, it could be true, but it does not have to be. The thread was not called "Should a new language include some form of dysfunctional OO?"

    AFAIK you do not have know anything about either one to grasp the basics of OOP in most OO languages.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  15. #60
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Uh ... inheritance and polymorphism are the defining traits of object-oriented programming. Objects without them is just object-based programming. Useful, but something different.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. priority inversion due to pthread_mutex_lock(): how to avoid?
    By mynickmynick in forum C Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 11:34 AM
  2. Why C Matters
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 09:09 AM
  3. Data Mapping and Moving Relationships
    By Mario F. in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-14-2006, 10:32 AM
  4. recommendation for a good OOP book
    By Mario F. in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-15-2006, 05:28 PM
  5. Language of choice after C++
    By gandalf_bar in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 02:20 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21