[Shootout-list] Re: OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Isaac Gouy wrote:
> Aaron Denney wrote:
>
> > Saying "the objects should support: interfaces, messaging, mutation,
> > and single inheritance" would make me a bit happier.
>
> Why would a multiple inheritance language be less OO?

That is not an inference from his statement.  He was describing a
baseline of capabilities to be considered OO.

> We can make the Shootout better by removing stuff that's bad,
> as-well-as adding stuff that seems good. (Adding flawed tests is
> unfortunately easy.)

I agree, which is why I want to see stronger categorical organization
and get rid of CRAPS.  Less likely people will add bad tests or
unnecessary tests if there are firmer guiding principles.  This is why
we write subroutines and refactor software, after all.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
                                - Ed McKenzie