Zaemis

If you were to create a new programming language, and you wanted to support object oriented programming with it, what would it look like? An object is a set of instance data and various functions that work with it. In Java, they're specified by first grouping the variables and functions together in a class, and then creating an instance from the class definition. In JavaScript, functions are dynamically attached to the instance data (or it's prototype). This is an intentional over-simplification but does highlight the fact that different programming languages approach working with objects differently. I've been thinking about objects and working with structured code in relation to Kiwi and it depresses me how much the object oriented school of thought that started with C++ and came to fruition in Java has influenced our industry. Of course there are the so-called five concepts of object oriented design , which says a design that meets the following criteria is considere...

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...

If you were to write your own programming language (as I still intend to do someday even if only for the learning experience it provides me), what symbol (or symbols) would you use to represent the assignment operator? Even though it would looks like BNF or old-school Pascal, I would lean towards using := as the assignment operator. That would leave me free to use = for equality and there wouldn't be the issue of = vs. == tripping up new programmers. Besides, performing assignments is more common than making comparisons, so perhaps assignment should have the more distinct operator. Going one step further, if the language I wrote was not strongly typed, I would use == as the identity operator (as like PHP's === ). := and = to == seems a more logical progression to me than = and == to === . I suspect I wouldn't use = as both assignment and comparison as Basic does because of the ambiguity it causes. For example: x = y = 0 Does this mean "assign 0 to ...