Mel Patrick wrote:

>>FB^3 will still support all of the things FB II does now.  But...
>>
>>You guys are taking the wrong approach to this.
>
>And I still haven't heard why its taken the programming world by storm. If
>its like anything else in the "programming world" its hot and cold on a
>daily basis. Its probably extremely well suited for some things and
>possibly not for others in that it would add needless complexity.

I wouldn't say it adds complexity.  OOP is designed with 
ease-of-programming and low maintenance in mind.  It does however add 
considerably to final code size, and is generally a bit slower.  The 
up-side to all of this is that you end up with code that is completely 
modular, and easy to modify.

>>It's a proven technology that has taken the programming world by storm.
>
>Going out to get my foul weather gear...;-)
>
>>Even Java is based on it it.
>
>So thats what makes Java so poor... I'm afraid I'm rather disappointed in
>Java itself. Ho, the language is OK, but the libraries for building Human
>Interfaces are awful !

No.  OOP doesn't make Java poor.  Without OOP, Java would be god-awful.

>No resources: No way to localize applets, and no way to have an HI without
>some specific code for creating the elements.
>
>Very limited support of graphics. Even if people think it's easy to add a
>blinking thing to their home page in Java, animation is limited by the fact
>that there no support for
>offscreen drawings, and even better, can can't choose the pen size when
>drawing ! There
>also no notion of 'regions', which are extremely useful.
>
>No way to have a SINGLE file containing a set of classes. No, I don't mean
>the .zip
>files, I'm speaking about a complete runnable applet in ONE file...
>
>At least, the network classes seems OK, beside the fact that the Java VM
>don't allow
>connections to another host than the host running the applet itself.

The things you listed are Java-specific limits which are not part of OOP.

>>Once you get the concept of OOP in your head, the rest is a breeze, and I
>>do mean a breeze.  The hardest thing about OOP is understanding the
>>concept.  And as far as ease of programming goes, if you think PG is
>>good, OOP will blow you away.
>
>Amazing that you have to apply this steep learning concept curve to write
>the same software you do now. Wonder how the world existed with out it.
>Probably much the same as its going to long after something else replaces
>it.
>
>Just my $.02 worth having been done the OOPs road..

It's not really that steep of a learning curve.  It's just a concept.  
And I would say that the concept is about as hard to grasp as the concept 
of event-driven programming.  Remember when you first started 
programming, and didn't know anything about event driven programming?  I 
don't know about anyone else on the list, but I will be the first to 
admit that, yes, it took me a while to grasp the concept.  Once I _did_ 
grasp it however, I thought it was the best thing since...well...just the 
best thing!  OOP is no different.  Take a look at the tutorial on sun's 
web site, Mel.  It's very explanatory.

========================================
|       David Blache - Developer       |
========================================
|   Staz Software, Inc - Stazologist   |
|        (tech@...)       |
|   Microcosm Software, Inc. - Owner   |
|        (microcsm@...)        |
========================================