Life on the bench: in my dressing gown

[OwlHoot]

More interested in Visual RPGIII.Net

HTH

I see there's even a COBOL.Net if you can believe that!

Don't these grizzled old 60s hackers ever give up, or die of old age or something?

[suityou01]

I see there's even a COBOL.Net if you can believe that!

Don't these grizzled old 60s hackers ever give up, or die of old age or something?

Old programmers never die, they just recurse.

[NickFitz]

I see there's even a COBOL.Net if you can believe that!

Don't these grizzled old 60s hackers ever give up, or die of old age or something?

Well, the whole point of the CLI around which .NET is built was to allow multiple language implementations. Given that there's a lot of legacy COBOL code around, it's not surprising that there's a CLI-based implementation.

There are a great number of languages implemented around the CLI, including such delights as Scheme, Haskell, FORTRAN, Oberon, and of course LISP

[AtW]

What's this COB-thing? Is it like corn on cob?

[Zippy]

There are a great number of languages implemented around the CLI, including such delights as Scheme, Haskell, FORTRAN, Oberon, and of course LISP

Ee lad - they were proper languages

[Olly]

including such delights as Scheme, Haskell, FORTRAN, Oberon, and of course LISP

eeekkk...functional programming.....I'm not going to be able to sleep for university nightmares this will awaken.

[HairyArsedBloke]

eeekkk...functional programming.....I'm not going to be able to sleep for university nightmares this will awaken.

f#

It is said that in the final days of planet Earth, everyone had bad dreams.

[RichardCranium]

eeekkk...functional programming.....I'm not going to be able to sleep for university nightmares this will awaken.

Funny, innit. Functional makes sense to me: just tell the computer what it is to do.

But I cannot get the object oriented paradigm to fit inside my head: it just won't plug in anywhere. It does not feel logical. It doesn't make sense. I look at code written that way and it doesn't talk to me.

I have read plenty of books and articles on it for over 15 years, but I just don't get it. I cannot see the philosophy behind it, and have yet to find some words that can explain it.

I've seen plenty of words on "how to do it", and rather weak arguments on why it is better (I am not in the least convinced) but none that explain the underlying "why it is how it is".


"The Astra instance of the car object has an attribute of steering which has a method of turning and its value is to be left." Just turn left, FFS!

[NickFitz]

"The Astra instance of the car object has an attribute of steering which has a method of turning and its value is to be left." Just turn left, FFS!

astra.turnLeft();

[Zippy]

But I cannot get the object oriented paradigm to fit inside my head: it just won't plug in anywhere. It does not feel logical. It doesn't make sense. I look at code written that way and it doesn't talk to me.

I have read plenty of books and articles on it for over 15 years, but I just don't get it. I cannot see the philosophy behind it, and have yet to find some words that can explain it.

I've seen plenty of words on "how to do it", and rather weak arguments on why it is better (I am not in the least convinced) but none that explain the underlying "why it is how it is".


"The Astra instance of the car object has an attribute of steering which has a method of turning and its value is to be left." Just turn left, FFS!

When I went for my BCS 'audition' some years ago, the panel asked me about this and we got into a debate. At the end one of them said "ah, it's like proper software engineering". Not a lot you can say to that really ...