RES: Cryptic OOP syntax

[André de Leiradella <leiradella@...>]

> On Jan 27, 2005, at 04:09, Mike Pall wrote:
> 
>> So IMHO instead of discussing everyone's favourite OOP style and what

>> kind of syntactic sugar is needed to support it, I suggest collecting

>> and categorizing the needed changes to the core. Then invent a good 
>> meta-mechanism that covers most of these cases (and maybe some more) 
>> and implement it.
> 
> I wholeheartedly concur with Mike's "State of the Union" address :)
> 
> Lua is just fine as it is right now.

Would you say that when Lua was in version 1 or 2? If everybody said it
was right back them, I wonder if it would get to be what it is today.

> 
> With a touch of creativity, one can shape Lua in any forms one wants 
> to. I personally don't feel the need for any additional syntactical 
> sugar of any sort to achieve my own devious OOP needs and wants.
> 
> At the moment, I'm quite happy simply using a combination of technics 
> highlighted by Roberto in Chapter 15.2 and 16.4 of Programming in Lua.

> That, in addition to a minimal set of organization principals, gives 
> me everything I need from an OOP standpoint: class and instance 
> methods, proper inheritance as well as full encapsulation.

I'm happy too, my customers aren't. If they were experienced
programmers, I could just publish an API for the application and let
them extend it in C++.

> 
> Of course, it would be nice to "formalize" the above packaging 
> conventions one way or another, if only for my own convenience sake. 
> But this doesn't necessarily imply changing anything in Lua itself. At

> the moment, I'm more looking toward integrating something like LuaLint

> in my "build" process to automatically check, validate and enforce my 
> own made up OOP conventions in addition to Lua's core syntax itself.
> 
> In summary, Lua, "as is", greatly satisfies for my deviant OOP 
> fetishism :))
> 
> And now lets all sing along 8^)
> 
> http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117852.html

If I could, maybe I'd be programming my old ZX-80 in Basic with no sound
ability, astonishing black & white 64x48 graphics (there was a hardware
adaptation to make it 256x192) and a huge 48Kb memory space!

Not being satisfied with it made me learn Z80, move on to more complex
systems like a MSX with 64Kb of RAM plus a 768Kb (!) expansion, and from
that to a regular PC.

> 
> Cheers

Regards,

Andre