This blog is now hosted at

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Why can't we just have data types?

I'm not the biggest fan of object oriented programming. There, I said it.

Also, the world is round, and circles the sun. Regardless of obsoleted dogma.

I just wanted to cook up a hash, containing hashes as values (with a couple levels of nesting). So, what do I end up with, since I'm currently stuck with those, "I know, we'll make everything an object!" languages?



That really should have been simple, and it's a great argument for DATA TYPES. Not Objects, not Aspects, just data. Really.

Perl's been accused of being cryptic, but here's the equivalent:

push(@{ $dicts{Dictionary}->{Elements} }, $pattern);
Of course, you don't actually have to do it that way, since perl is actually quite flexible. It has a very limited range of actual data types, but then has many operators that can manipulate the data (in wondrous and fantastic ways!).

No comments: