"Wes Groleau" wrote in message news:e4WdneVLhtPUGQmiU-KYgw@gbronline.com... > > Interfaces I think there may be some value to. *** So do I, but not at all costs, in some situations I found iterfaces sacrificed some native capabilities of OOP no matter the language. Besides if you use polymorphism right combined with good naming conventions, there's no need for interfaces ;-). but on very big scale projects maybe an inteface can be good to force a minimal proper implementation of an related object. > > But Object.Method ? > *** I agree here, not sure what the point is to object methods. That would be like trying to sell me an orange and what I want is an apple but the selling argument would be that an orange is a fruit and therefore can take the place of my apple ;-). > I can understand (though I disagree with) someone > who believes that > > X += 1 > > is easier to read than > > Inc(X) > > But someone who is not capable of learning and using > both is not capable of being a competent programmer. > *** Indeed, programming is a context related exercise. Hence if I'm in Ada, Pascal, I'll use Inc(X) and smile, if I "have to" use C or C++ I'll use += and smile (though a bit less ;-). But I also fail to see why one should be used over the other. += certainly didn't make or break C or C++ and he or she (I'm an equal oppurtunity flamer ;-) who thinks otherwise needs to do a detailed history review of C and C++ ;-). > The same applies to Method(Object) vs. Object.Method > > Please explain to me WHY someone thinks this is a > "serious improvement" ? > *** My theoretical, theoretical mind you, is that it's the first implementation they learned, and wouldn't want to change the way they understood it ;-). > -- > Wes Groleau > Can we afford to be relevant? > http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html > -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com