D - more power than (really) needed !

[Hasan Aljudy]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
<snip>
> 
> I get a feeling sometimes that there is a belief that the languages
> preaching OOP (Java, Eiffel, etc) defines OO. Object orientation is an idea
> of how to group what belong to each other together. There are umpteen books
> on best practices how to do this

True, OO is not so well defined, mainly because alot of people think 
they understand oop, when they really don't.

I wish the whole world learned object oriented principles from Schock
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~schock/courses/w05/cpsc233/lectures.html



>, and AFAICS, the Java books from the past
> two years differs hugely from those I used back in 98-99 when I started at
> the University. Especially I read the other day that although inheritance
> solves a lot, it is often a bad practice if you want a system that is
> reusable and extensible (Head First Design Patterns, one of the current top
> books in the Java category.)

The problem is when people look at OOP superficially as a set of tools, 
e.g. inheritance!
OOP is not a set of tools, it's a set of principles. Inheritance is not 
there just for the sake of it, it serves a very good purpose: increasing 
cohesion by pulling common/shared code in a super class.

You can (hypothetically, at least) write object oriented code that 
doesn't use inheritance, and you can write non-object oriented code that 
uses inheritance & classes (this happens alot).