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; Do you think OOP is a must in every new language?? In other words, if you were developing a new ...

  1. #1
    "Why use dynamic memory?"
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    186

    Should OOP be any new language priority??

    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
    Last edited by Hussain Hani; 06-09-2009 at 05:27 AM.
    "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."-Bjarne Stroustrup
    Nearing the end of finishing my 2D card game! I have to work on its 'manifesto' though <_<

  2. #2
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    I think it depends on what the language is for. General purpose? Then probably yes. Although I'd probably try my luck with "aspect oriented programming".

    The end.

  3. #3
    "Why use dynamic memory?"
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    186
    yes, you could say general purpose language
    "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."-Bjarne Stroustrup
    Nearing the end of finishing my 2D card game! I have to work on its 'manifesto' though <_<

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    ASM has been here for a long time and is not going away anytime soon. With every new architecture there's a new assembly language.

    must in every new language
    Those are strong words.

  5. #5
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Who knows, maybe someday we have something totally new, not object-oriented, not procedural...
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Magic-oriented programming .

    C++ proof-of-concept code -
    Code:
    int main() {
    	std::string fragments[6] = { "int main() {", "return 0;", "std::cout << \"Hello world!\" << std::endl;", "}", "#include <iostream>" };
    
    	while (!compile(fragments)) {
    		std::next_permutation(&fragments[0], &fragments[5]);
    	}
    }

  7. #7
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    I didn't vote in this one because the answer has to be "that depends", but I do agree for any general purpose language OO should be available.

    I think the traditional discourse which would present a number of "programming paradigms" is not worth that much; it does provide an abstract perspective, and a means to distinguish one way of accomplishing something from another, parallel way of doing the same thing, but it also *obviously* ladden with too much historical baggage, perhaps, 1) the bones of arguments and discussions that don't merit continuing. 2) attempts to brown bag a set of observations and fit them into a lunch schedule.

    The various paradigms do not seem to equate with one another in many senses; sometimes it seems to reflect something about "different kinds of apples" while other times it seems an absurdist exercise about apples, oranges, and truck driving.

    For example, if there is an "Object Oriented Programming" style, why isn't there a "Struct Oriented Programming" style? Would the later just be procedural or imperative (or would in fact be OOP)? Either way, again, it seems to me these are some very sloppy categories, and the only reason they get respect is because that is the traditional discourse. If they didn't exist and I showed up here in the morning presenting my paper on various "Programming Paradigms" and I used the existent ones, how seriously would *you* take it? I would say the idea is useful, but not crucial, and much of the thinking lazy, hazy, or crazy. And -- worst of all -- that I was trying to include way, way, too much unrelated material and creating a set of false relationships in order to make the whole "paper" cohere.
    Last edited by MK27; 06-09-2009 at 07:34 AM.
    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

  8. #8
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Support for object-oriented constructs is a must for any new GP language, if not for practical usage reasons, then still for cultural reasons. ("Your language doesn't support OOP? It must be worthless.")
    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

  9. #9
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    The way the question is worded, I say no.
    For a simple scripting language, OOP is not required.
    For a language where you'd write a large application, OOP would definitely be useful.
    "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

  10. #10
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    not object-oriented, not procedural...
    functional.... I'm a big fan of Lisp's method of splitting things into lists, and lists of lists. It's not quite as flexible, but I'm having a hard time thinking of data that couldn't be modeled in that fashion. And it's extremely easy to implement - meaning that if I needed to create a new language - I might use that concept as a base.

  11. #11
    Banned ಠ_ಠ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Magic-oriented programming .
    that's called Lisp
    ╔╗╔══╦╗
    ║║║╔╗║║
    ║╚╣╚╝║╚╗
    ╚═╩══╩═╝

  12. #12
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,001
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    The way the question is worded, I say no.
    For a simple scripting language, OOP is not required.
    For a language where you'd write a large application, OOP would definitely be useful.
    Yet you would not like to see OOP even if it is a simple language for simple tasks?
    Who are you to say what the people who uses it likes or what they want to use it for?
    With that into account and the fact that pretty much all modern languages have OOP in one way or another, I must say YES (thus my vote), it should be part of any new language.
    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.

  13. #13
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,270
    Object-orientation is a property of a program, not a language. Some languages make it more natural to express OOP designs.

    Since only a subset of real world problems can properly be described by relationships between "objects," OOP is not a technique to be blindly applied to every problem.

    Our goal as software engineers is to produce programs which work properly to an extremely high confidence level and are maintainable by people other than those who wrote them. OOP is just a tool programmers use for design, implementation, and communication between themselves.

    The question is about as ridiculous as asking if all buildings should be assembled only with hammers.

    Why does OOP have such dominance presently? There was an explosion of interest in computers and computer programming. Coincidentally, OOP languages were on the rise at the same time. So you had a large number of people adopting languages that happened to be popular, and this trend has maintained its momentum.

    You'd be wrong to think that the current status of OOP is anything other than a happenstance. Had it not been invented, some other paradigm would have risen as the public (i.e. all you people here) got excited about the machines.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  14. #14
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    Object-orientation is a property of a program, not a language.

    The question is about as ridiculous as asking if all buildings should be assembled only with hammers.

    You'd be wrong to think that the current status of OOP is anything other than a happenstance. Had it not been invented, some other paradigm would have risen as the public (i.e. all you people here) got excited about the machines.
    I think you are "bang on" here until that last paragraph. It is (I suppose) hapstance (sp, but I quite like "happenstance") that someone invented the hammer, but it is not really "just hapstance" that they then became popular as tools. Not the only one in the kit, but unlikely to be traded for a bowl of jello, etc.
    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. #15
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    I think you are "bang on" here until that last paragraph. It is (I suppose) hapstance (sp, but I quite like "happenstance") that someone invented the hammer, but it is not really "just hapstance" that they then became popular as tools. Not the only one in the kit, but unlikely to be traded for a bowl of jello, etc.
    I don't know if you can take my analogy quite that far. With carpentry tools, you really can't build a building entirely with hammers (unless it's a very weird design). But in programming, you can theoretically solve any (solvable) problem in any Turing-complete language of your choice, even if it's not the best choice.

    I think we debated this last week. You make a conscious choice that your program will or won't be object-oriented. Given that choice, you can implement in any language that doesn't outright get in the way of that. Yes, I can write OOP code in C -- I've done it.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

Page 1 of 6 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