> Can I say Procedural is better than OO? Better at what? It depends what you are trying to do.
The novelist and aeronautical engineer Neville Shute wrote "It has been said an engineer is a man who can do for five shillings what any fool can do for a pound". These days we accept that some engineers are women, but the point still holds. You should use whatever technique gets you the result you need and does it for the least cost. That could be an object-oriented Go solution, a procedural Go solution, a shell script, a spreadsheet, an abacus or one of many other choices. My only caveat is that when you consider cost, you need to think about the whole life of the project. if you are going to use a solution for years, there's no point producing a quick and dirty version that doesn't work properly. As for the discussions in this thread about Go's object oriented model compared with those offered by other languages, I'm reminded of Bjarne Stroustrup's paper "What is Object-Oriented Programming?", published around the time he was creating C++. I don't have my copy to hand, but he pointed out that you can write an object-oriented program using any programmable system, from a Turing machine upwards. The important issue is, does the system support Object-Oriented Programming rather than merely allowing it. As fa I'm concerned, Go supports Object-Oriented Programming at least as well as any other language that I know, and a lot better than most of them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
