Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > I've reached a point where I think classes are a superfluous OO concept. > You only need objects.
I don't know whether "superfluous" is correct, but they certainly are *optional*. There are at least two types of object oriented programming: class-bases, and prototype-based. Java, Python, Ruby, etc. are all class-based. The only example of a prototype-based OOP language I know of is Javascript, and even that has recently gained the ability to define classes. I don't know enough about prototyped OOP to really give a definitive answer, but I believe that the popularity of class-based OOP is because there is a huge body of theory on types, which makes it easier for compiler designers to reason about classes than prototypes. For example, if Haskell introduces OOP (and it may already have, I don't know) I would expect it to be class-based. Also, the first OOP languages (Simula and, especially, Smalltalk) are class-based, and people tend to copy what's been done before and what they're familiar with. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
