[Info-vax] And another one bites the dust....

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 2/17/22 14:01, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-02-17, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:42 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>> I was going to comment on this but didn't.  Now, however, I will
>>> once again point out that OOP is not a universal panacea.  every
>>> thing is not an object.  And sometimes the older paradigms are
>>> actually better for the task at hand.
>>
>> The benefits of OO are pretty widely accepted. And almost everything
>> can be considered an object.
>>
> 
> DEC certainly thought so back in the middle/late 1980s.

Probably a bad example.  Look where it took them.  :-)

> 
>> OOP is obviously not the only valuable approach, but if looking at
>> the OOP languages actually used then they are usually multi-paradigm:
>> - practically all support procedural programming
>> - most support functional programming
>> - most support generic programming
>>
>> So it is not like the use of one of those languages only work
>> if everything is OOP centric - it makes sense if just some of it
>> is OOP centric.
>>
> 
> And this is nothing new. Mica was going to be an object based OS,
> but the objects could still be used with procedural languages.
> 
> Simon.
> 

bill