RES: Still cryptic OOP syntax

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

lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br wrote:
> Hi, André.
> 
> 	I understand your point of view and agree with most of the
things you
> said. Users are evil, they do mistakes and blame you for their own
> actions. 

Thanks for understanding me.

> 
> 	When I started in this mailing list, I was used to read
something
> like: "If you really want feature X as the language Y does, then go
> use that language.". I must confess that it somewhat shocked me in
> the beggining, but later I realised they were right; many languages
> born to be small, flexible, fast etc. but they let to be 'evolved' by
> hypes , booms, fireworks and Java (LOL). So, naturally, they became
> Barbie on vacation, Barbie with glasses, Barbie hairdresser ... (OT:
> Have you ever seen a Barbie Computer Programmer? Perhaps a Barbie Web
> Designer?). 

I can't go to language Y, but I'll give Y a try with MinGW.

But OOP in the core won't make Lua big, and sure it'd be more flexible.

> 
> 	Instead of changing the language -- as it already gives you a
> mechanism to do what you want -- change your's and/or your users'
> design philosophy. It's tough at first, but when everyone learn it,
> things will start to happen smoothly.

I can't gather my users in a class room (even a virtual one) and teach
them to encrypt/decrypt my class system because new users can come all
the time. In fact, I need an easy OOP syntax to *have* more users
coming.

> 
> 
> []'s
> --rb

Andre