They might be too busy, it doesn't take the need away ;-).

rpgfan: "I personally would vote for _CLASS. I don't like the way Java has the object, and what you are creating is actually an instance of an object rather than an object itself. To me, it seems like a strange way to do things. Of course, C++ is better in that regard. After all, you create an object of some class type in C++. However, that deems the words "object" and "instance" interchangeable, and that would be a completely different debate. *sigh* The current idea of how to implement OOP is fundamentally flawed in my opinion."

The main issue here is that C++ uses the multiple inheritance model and Java uses the single inheritance model. What this comes down to is do you create a Pegasus class by deriving an object from the bird and horse class or do you derive an object from a horse class and add flying to the derived object. Ultimately, they can both arrive at the creation of a Pegasus class ;-).


rpgfan: "Unfortunately, the giants of programming languages don't have the time to discuss what OOP is. Everybody has their own idea. This is the problem, and no solution is in sight. :("

Whoever said the big guys had to be the ones to talk about it in the first place? ;-) if everyone waits for the big guys to sit down and do somethign we'll all be spending a lot of time waiting ;-). I think that here, in QB64, we have a chance to make something out of OOP that can be a real BASIC OOP implementation worthy of the name and of the language it's being implemented in. The bottom line in my book is that if we do a C++ version of BASIC OOP or a Java version of BASIC OOP we don't have a BASIC OOP we have a C++ or a Java OOP implemented in the language. ;-). Though we can use them as big goals or rules we shouldn't let the C++ or Java OOP force the implementation we'll have to use. We all know that C++ OOP and Java OOP are both far from perfect to begin with ;-) Myabe it's time to make a whole new OOP implementation that is based on the lessons learned from ObjectPascal, C++ and Java (and Ada while we're at it) that is completemy BASIC friendly so to speak. :-) And this early in the development phase is the perfect place to define and decide if it's possible and feasible.

As you said, it's fundamentally flawed, let's explore the flaws, enumerate them and see what can be done about them :-).