Re: Discussion on global variables in IDL

[mvukovic(at)taz.telusa.com (Mirko Vukovic)]

alt@iszf.irk.ru (Altyntsev Dmitriy) wrote in message news:<6b9fda50.0108100132.13a58695@posting.google.com>...

> 
> So, what is the most annoying thing with IDL OOP for me? The fact that
> when I describe class I loose freedom of changing field type and size.
> I can not have undefined field in class too. And I can not add field
> during execution. Let us view very simple typical example.

...stuff deleted 
> Regards, 
> Altyntsev Dmitriy

OOP is for ``high level'' programming.  In my (not that vast)
experience you don't write an OOP application by sitting in front of
the terminal.  You think, specify, and _plan_ the application.  Then
you type it in.

BTW, I ``discovered'' a gorgeous book on OOP called Design Patterns. 
I don't have the author names, but you can find it easily enough on
amazon.com.  It was an eye-opener for me on making re-usable object
patterns.

If I had a top ten wish, it would be to make IDL a more OO language,
implementing all of the basic OO features and some of the more
advanced OO features, including operator overloading.  Note that this
is a dangereous wish, as highly obtuse and non-transparent code can be
result from a mis-use of those tools.

But other wishes of your list are appealing too.

Cheers,

Mirko