[NTLUG:Discuss] For Language Junkies

[steve]

Leroy Tennison wrote:

> Thank you, I now know that I'm confused at a higher level.  I know that 
> C++ and java are object-oriented, what about Python and Ruby?

You have to be a little bit careful here.

C++ has object oriented features - but it's a superset of C (which is
utterly devoid of OOP features).  So it's perfectly possible to program
in a non-object-oriented style in C++.   One of the more powerful
things about C++ is your ability to mix programming paradigms as needed.

Java is significantly harder to use in a non-OOP manner because of it's
lack of pointers and other features that you pretty much need to write
in a non-object oriented style.

Python and Ruby are also OOP languages.

 > I haven't
> been impressed with Object Orientation.  I realize it's supposed to be 
> the "right" way to program (my, my - arent't we humble, the one right 
> way to program...).

Well, OOP has a really strong advantage in some situations - writing
graphics code (as I do) is vastly easier with OOP methods.

There are times where a non-OOP approach works better - but as you get
more familiar with writing good OOP code, the number of occasions where
it fails you and you want to write 'conventional' code gets smaller and
smaller.

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.