Yes, that's my biggest gripe about C# as well. Would that decision be political with a big or small P?

<snip>
In article <c19hc7$1h72$1@digitaldaemon.com>, resistor@mac.com says...
>Point in case: public static void main (String[] args)
>There is no reason in the world why the main function should be part of a class.
>It makes absolutely no sense, and completely breaks the idea of OO being used to
>represent OBJECTS.
</snip>

It seemed odd to me also.

"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c19pq6$22d5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is that someone trying to pass themselves off
> as "Ant" (antonio) ?
> I think he speaks(and spells) a lot better than that.
>
> Phill.
>
> "And" <And_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c19mas$1r6d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > In article <c19hc7$1h72$1@digitaldaemon.com>, resistor@mac.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > >Point in case: public static void main (String[] args)
> > >
> >
> > Here we go again.
> > that not OO! That one language idea of starting an application.
> > who told you it was a good idea?
> >
> > >There is no reason in the world why the main function should be part of
a
> class.
> >
> > "main function"?
> > Sorry to say but your mind is already crippled.
> > Why not call it entry point? or start something?
> > Why not have a application object?
> > Java System could be considered an application object.
> > I wouldn't mind to see a language starting an application
> > form a subclass of something like the java System class.
> >
> > >It makes absolutely no sense
> >
> > Might not be ideal but it works. You are a bit radical aren't you?
> >
> > > and completely breaks the idea of OO being used to represent OBJECTS.
> >
> > "completely"? you are completely ...
> >
> > >
> > >The point is, then, that there is no need for any sensible language to
be
> as
> > >rigidly OO as, say, Java.  Forcing some things in OO is just stupid,
and
> some
> > >problems are better off solved procedurally.
> >
> > I would say supid is to use java if you are not going to do OO.
> > Java is suppose to help you coding your OO solution for your problem.
> >
> > >Another example:  I just today what a utility in procedural C to do
some
> > >statistical analysis on datasets.  There was no need for OO: it just
read
> > >values, did some math on them, and wrote them back out.  Now, in Java
or
> another
> > >rigidly OO system, I would have had to define a class just to stick my procedural function in.  Where is the logic in that?
> >
> > What's your problem of having an extra set of {}?
> > You don't have to create a hierarqui of objects to do a simple task.
> > I don't get your point.
> > Of course if you are using java for that you are completly...
> >
> > >
> > >It is far more useful and flexible, especially for a language like D
> which
> > >claims to be a systems language as well, NOT to rigidly OO.
> > >
> >
> > I'm using D rigidly OO, sorry for that...
> >
> > Ant
> >
> >
>
>

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c19n52$1rnd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> SpookyET wrote:
>
> > My target isn't you anyway, it is Mr. Walter Bright.
>
> Matthew is like this groups bouncer (except he can't kick anyone out).

He he. :)

> He knows what he's talking about.

I think you must've mistaken me for someone else. ;)

In article <c1a2ki$2gko$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>It seemed odd to me also.
>
>"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c19pq6$22d5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Is that someone trying to pass themselves off
>> as "Ant" (antonio) ?
>> I think he speaks(and spells) a lot better than that.
>>

I'm sorry to say that you are wrong ;(

(This shows you how difficult is to communicate on
my second language, as soon as I'm a bit tired...)

I hope the general idea makes some sense.

I had just 2 things to say:
- One implementation of the OO paradigma (java) should not be taken
  as the whole OO
- Some "open minded" guys can only see
  the start of an application as "main function"

Ant

PS some guys are too lazy even to scroll down to the bottom of the
posts to see the answers so don't tell me to use a spell checker
every time I post. I use it when it's incorporated on the tool
I have to post.

Matthew wrote:

>>Matthew is like this groups bouncer (except he can't kick anyone out).
>>    
>>
>
>He he. :)
>  
>
>>He knows what he's talking about.
>>    
>>
>
>I think you must've mistaken me for someone else. ;)
>
If people are going to buy your book you'd better know what your talking about <g>

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

But what's being advocated here is a completely-OO'd language like Java.  My entire point is that there is a large class of problems in which OO is entire unnecessary, and is just extra baggage.

I did not say that OO didn't have a place.  I always write OO when writing UI code.  That's an instance where it really excels.

As to an "entry object", the whole point is that the object ISN'T USED for entry other than the fact that this one method happens to be the main execution branch.  Now, if you wanted to make a language where the "entry object" itself was initialized with values reflective of the application's current state, you might have had a better case.  But of the 3 OO languages I use in my daily programming (Java, C#, and ObjC), none of them does so.  All require you to access an external system object to obtain application status information. Hence any purpose there might have been in having an "entry object" is lost, cause it's not being used as such.

Also, I strongly suggest the phrase close-minded stop being thrown around.  To me, YOU sound like the close-minded one.  I want to have the option of writing D in whichever programming idiom I choose to solve the problem.  And you're telling me I should have to do it your way?  Who's close-minded?

-Owen

In article <c1aipb$cd8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>
>In article <c1a2ki$2gko$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>>
>>It seemed odd to me also.
>>
>>"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c19pq6$22d5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Is that someone trying to pass themselves off
>>> as "Ant" (antonio) ?
>>> I think he speaks(and spells) a lot better than that.
>>>
>
>I'm sorry to say that you are wrong ;(
>
>(This shows you how difficult is to communicate on
>my second language, as soon as I'm a bit tired...)
>
>I hope the general idea makes some sense.
>
>I had just 2 things to say:
>- One implementation of the OO paradigma (java) should not be taken
>  as the whole OO
>- Some "open minded" guys can only see
>  the start of an application as "main function"
>
>Ant
>
>PS some guys are too lazy even to scroll down to the bottom of the
>posts to see the answers so don't tell me to use a spell checker
>every time I post. I use it when it's incorporated on the tool
>I have to post.
>
>

You people don't read, out of all the features i proposed, you are still stuck on the "main" function/method that i wrote in another thread.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:47:15 +0000 (UTC), <resistor@mac.com> wrote:

> But what's being advocated here is a completely-OO'd language like Java.  My
> entire point is that there is a large class of problems in which OO is entire
> unnecessary, and is just extra baggage.
>
> I did not say that OO didn't have a place.  I always write OO when writing UI
> code.  That's an instance where it really excels.
>
> As to an "entry object", the whole point is that the object ISN'T USED for entry
> other than the fact that this one method happens to be the main execution
> branch.  Now, if you wanted to make a language where the "entry object" itself
> was initialized with values reflective of the application's current state, you
> might have had a better case.  But of the 3 OO languages I use in my daily
> programming (Java, C#, and ObjC), none of them does so.  All require you to
> access an external system object to obtain application status information.
> Hence any purpose there might have been in having an "entry object" is lost,
> cause it's not being used as such.
>
> Also, I strongly suggest the phrase close-minded stop being thrown around.  To
> me, YOU sound like the close-minded one.  I want to have the option of writing D
> in whichever programming idiom I choose to solve the problem.  And you're
> telling me I should have to do it your way?  Who's close-minded?
>
> -Owen
>
> In article <c1aipb$cd8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>>
>> In article <c1a2ki$2gko$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>>>
>>> It seemed odd to me also.
>>>
>>> "Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:c19pq6$22d5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>> Is that someone trying to pass themselves off
>>>> as "Ant" (antonio) ?
>>>> I think he speaks(and spells) a lot better than that.
>>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to say that you are wrong ;(
>>
>> (This shows you how difficult is to communicate on
>> my second language, as soon as I'm a bit tired...)
>>
>> I hope the general idea makes some sense.
>>
>> I had just 2 things to say:
>> - One implementation of the OO paradigma (java) should not be taken
>>  as the whole OO
>> - Some "open minded" guys can only see
>>  the start of an application as "main function"
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> PS some guys are too lazy even to scroll down to the bottom of the
>> posts to see the answers so don't tell me to use a spell checker
>> every time I post. I use it when it's incorporated on the tool
>> I have to post.
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

SpookyET wrote:

> You people don't read, out of all the features i proposed, you are still  stuck on the "main" function/method that i wrote in another thread.

Dam, you write allot.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

In article <c1amei$iou$1@digitaldaemon.com>, resistor@mac.com says...
>
>But what's being advocated here is a completely-OO'd language like Java.  My entire point is that there is a large class of problems in which OO is entire unnecessary, and is just extra baggage.
>
>I did not say that OO didn't have a place.  I always write OO when writing UI code.  That's an instance where it really excels.
>
>As to an "entry object", the whole point is that the object ISN'T USED for entry other than the fact that this one method happens to be the main execution branch.  Now, if you wanted to make a language where the "entry object" itself was initialized with values reflective of the application's current state, you might have had a better case.  But of the 3 OO languages I use in my daily programming (Java, C#, and ObjC), none of them does so.  All require you to access an external system object to obtain application status information. Hence any purpose there might have been in having an "entry object" is lost, cause it's not being used as such.
>
>Also, I strongly suggest the phrase close-minded stop being thrown around.  To me, YOU sound like the close-minded one.  I want to have the option of writing D in whichever programming idiom I choose to solve the problem.  And you're telling me I should have to do it your way?  Who's close-minded?
>
>-Owen

I didn't try to tell you to do any thing,
I'm sorry if it sounds like that.

Seems that we agree on the rest, except:

> But what's being advocated here is a completely-OO'd language

I though that we are just arguing that a better support for OO
is needed not much is missing but we could use an OO lib.
( and Partial implementation of Interfaces as discussed in:
  http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/24406 )

The entry object would require a subclass of a singleton
or something like that.
I'm not interested now in thinking if that a good idea or not.
I'm sure the creators of the languages you refer thought about
that obvious idea. For sure it's not used for pratical reasons.

Ant

PS sorry for my style of writting. it's result of my limitations with english.

In article <c1amei$iou$1@digitaldaemon.com>, resistor@mac.com says...
>
>Also, I strongly suggest the phrase close-minded stop being thrown around.

You are right. The fact that we are in a new language group already shows that we are open minded.

Ant