[NTLUG:Discuss] For Language Junkies

[Chris Cox]

steve wrote:
...
> 
> I share your skepticism over very small programs of the sort that
> scripting languages were originally intended for - but for large
> programs, OOP is a strongly recommended approach.   I believe that
> the increasing popularity of OOP in 'scripting' languages merely
> reflects the fact that larger programs can now be attempted in those
> systems.

Well...I'm going to have to disagree. OOP languages like Java
and C++ in particular make things incredibly difficult to
debug simple issues.  OOP tends to abstract... unfortunately
it is a double edged sword and abstracts the code away
from the programmer.

OOP is great for interfaces though.  But I'd probably use
something else underneath my library interface (or
whatever is being built).

Java is supposed to "write once, run everywhere."
However, this was quickly changed to "write once, test
everywhere."  And one person said it best when he
wrote, "write once, run scared!"

Most of the problems are because the language is
so far away from the underlying operating system
it is running on.

Now... that's really the crux I suppose.  The idea of
trying to do development without any porting magic.
The idea of a single source base running everywhere
without the traditional bandages.

I say 'phooey'.  It doesn't work... it hasn't
worked.  Oh yes... there are are small class of
programs for which this will work... but my
experience is that the multi-million line projects
are simply a mess done the OOP-way throughout.

With that said, I do like Ruby.  Call me a hypocrite.
:)