From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [9fans] g++
Message-ID: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE479C66@black.aprote.com>
From: "Tiit Lankots" <t.lankots@aprote.ee>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:05:52 +0300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 34ca0540-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>> Looking back at your previous message, perhaps it is the
>> "scope rules and silent actions associated with inheritance", in
>> which case are there any "Object Oriented" languages that you think
>> are OK?
>
>I'm not Charles, but I also answer.
>
>Have you seen Oberon-2?  It is OO done well.
>
> Brantley Coile
>
>

Oberon-2 pushes complexity out of the language and into the libraries, =
not=20
unlike C. The part I miss most in it is some form of generics. Although =
I must
agree that its O-O is rather well-designed, indeed.

There appears to be some nasty law of physics at work here: the simple =
and
elegant O-O languages are easy to use right, but at the same time lack =
the
single biggest trump of O-O -- generics; while the languages that =
contain
generics are cumbersome and ugly. Go figure.

Tiit Lankots