Thread: 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

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.

yes, you could say general purpose language

Who knows, maybe someday we have something totally new, not object-oriented, not procedural...

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.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Magic-oriented programming .

that's called Lisp

Originally Posted by cyberfish

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]);
	}
}

That (with a few more elements) resembles what some of the beginners do here, right?

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.")

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.

Originally Posted by cpjust

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.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Yet you would not like to see OOP even if it is a simple language for simple tasks?

No, if I want OOP I'd use a language that has it.
You wouldn't want to try to write a client/server based application in MS Batch script would you? But for simple tasks like copying a few files around, it works perfectly without OOP.
If someone comes out with a new simple scripting language that's fast to learn and easy to write, adding OOP would increase its complexity and time to learn... Plus it would be too slow for a large application. But for simple tasks, it's fine.

Originally Posted by cpjust

You wouldn't want to try to write a client/server based application in MS Batch script would you? But for simple tasks like copying a few files around, it works perfectly without OOP.

Sure, but something I found interesting about ruby -- where everything is an object, including a "file" -- is that it does make copying a few things around *even more simple* and "perfect".

It would be hard to say (as matsp's example of GIMP scripting implies) that not having formal class/object syntax is a feature. I'm sure if you went back far enough, people would say this about *functions*:

Sure, functions are great for doing complex programming. But you don't *need* them.

Yet most people would not use asm for "general purpose scripting" and functions are useful even in simple "file copying" scenarios. Objects even more so. So I'm gonna vote with Elysia on this one.