We can agree java takes all the fun out of programming. And, yes, Linus hates c++, too <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/249460/">http://lwn.net/Articles/249460/</a>.<br><br>But ask yourself, how is the dispatch table as presented in this thread any different that perl's symbol table? Usually passing around code references like this means that you're trying to create your own symbol table and yet another object model. If that's the case, then you haven't avoided OO programming at all, you've only attempted to reinvent it all by yourself.<br>
<br>With respect to when OO is a good way to go, I think Damian Conway's 11 questions are a decent guide:<br><br> <a href="http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2005-01-25.html">http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2005-01-25.html</a><br>
<br>I like OO and use it often. It makes it much easier for me to reuse my code, and much easier to change my mind.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br> b<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Christopher Howard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:choward@indicium.us">choward@indicium.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br></div>
I'm not entirely against object oriented programming, but I generally try to avoid it until I see a very clear need for it. E.g., a need for multiple instantiations of an object, or a need for inheritance in a class hierarchy.<br>
<br>
I'm inclined to see a big difference between maintaining separate namespaces, and real object oriented programming.<br>
<br>
Anyone else feel the same way?<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Christopher Howard<br>
<a href="http://indicium.us" target="_blank">http://indicium.us</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br>