Re: A question for my personal knowledge.

[sb463ba@d250-hrz.uni-duisburg.de (Georg Bauhaus)]

David Starner (dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org) wrote:
: Mike wrote:
: > In Ada, you still use function calls and pass tagged records as
: > parameters.
: > 
: > in real OO, you invoke methods on objects.

: Only syntatic sugar. Pretty synatic sugar, but synatic sugar. Before I
: got used to it, I was planning on writing a preprocessor to change
: Object.Method(...) to Method(Object, ...). 

Why fix yourselves to one particular perspective on things?
You might look at the string ``get(me, "out")'' and consider
it a sentence in Language "English" (with weird puctiation,
though).  You might say, "get" is a Verb (you are a linguist),
you might say, "get" is a method - not an HTTP method, though ;- ,
because you know that "me" is an object-like thing (you are
the programmer).  And you conclude, from the quotes around
"out", that "out" is not an out parameter, but a message:
"out"! (The meaning of quotes...) You could write, in some
other languages, me.get("out"), which I do not find easier to
comprehend *in English*. It might be easier for you to know the
type of programming thing from this syntax if you are used
to using dot .notation. and if this syntax were uniquely bound to
a syntactic/semantic meaning, yet does it matter? Not if you
are interested in the meaning of a program, rather than in its
technical structure.

In Perl - to add something new - you choose from:

  get $me "out";

or

  $me->get("out");

Same thing. Or not?
Isn't this whole discussion about an aesthetical topic, really?
And arent these matters of taste, to some extent? 

-#- Georg