(*Well, instead of x.y(), you can call it x_y().*)
You are correct, however I have worked on a project where this was the naming convention (module_function()), and it never failed that someone would break the convention.
(*Besides, are you suggesting that OOP is better *only* because it allegedly has less name-space overlap problems? If that is the best you can claim about OOP, then why the rush to OO?*)
Actually, I mentioned keeping the data in a consistent state. Encapsulation is usually better with an OO language. If your data members are private they are only accessible by the methods of your class. Again this could be achieved by convention with procedural programming, if everyone follows the convention. You could also create a convention for an object heirarchy (like gtk), but it is usually easier if it's part of the language.
(*Usually people will brag about its "encapsulation" or "abstraction" or "modeling" power, not namespaces. (Although those other guys never justify their preference in black and white. It is just a feeling to them.)*)
None of those concepts are impossible with a procedural language, but are sometimes made easier by an OO language, since it is a part of the language.
Here are a few:
Boa Constructor, Black Adder, Visual Python , Python Win, PythonWorks Pro, Wing IDE, and Komodo. There are some others, check out editing python source.
Namespaces for one. Namespace pollution can occur very easily on a large project with multiple developers. Coupling the data and functionality also allows you to be sure that your data is in a consistent state. OOP is not a holy grail, but can be useful (esp. for things like user interfaces).
I believe the first KDE 3 beta was just moving from QT2 to QT3. QT stays source compatible, but not binary compatible with previous versions. There probably weren't as many new features added in the first beta. I'm not sure though, since I haven't tried it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a fix for the linux version?
(*Well, instead of x.y(), you can call it x_y().*)
You are correct, however I have worked on a project where this was the naming convention (module_function()), and it never failed that someone would break the convention.
(*Besides, are you suggesting that OOP is better *only* because it allegedly has less name-space overlap problems? If that is the best you can claim about OOP, then why the rush to OO?*)
Actually, I mentioned keeping the data in a consistent state. Encapsulation is usually better with an OO language. If your data members are private they are only accessible by the methods of your class. Again this could be achieved by convention with procedural programming, if everyone follows the convention. You could also create a convention for an object heirarchy (like gtk), but it is usually easier if it's part of the language.
(*Usually people will brag about its "encapsulation" or "abstraction" or "modeling" power, not namespaces. (Although those other guys never justify their preference in black and white. It is just a feeling to them.)*)
None of those concepts are impossible with a procedural language, but are sometimes made easier by an OO language, since it is a part of the language.
Here are a few: Boa Constructor, Black Adder, Visual Python , Python Win, PythonWorks Pro, Wing IDE, and Komodo. There are some others, check out editing python source.
>>How is that better than a function?
// OOP
// Function call
>>recordHandle.newBehavior()
>>newBehavior(recordHandle)
Namespaces for one. Namespace pollution can occur very easily on a large project with multiple developers. Coupling the data and functionality also allows you to be sure that your data is in a consistent state. OOP is not a holy grail, but can be useful (esp. for things like user interfaces).
I'm using mozilla as my main browser on NT4. I use the classic theme and it feels like a native app to me.
I believe the first KDE 3 beta was just moving from QT2 to QT3. QT stays source compatible, but not binary compatible with previous versions. There probably weren't as many new features added in the first beta. I'm not sure though, since I haven't tried it.
WinCvs also has a recursive add built in.