Difference between revisions of "Category talk:RPG"
m |
Starbuck5250 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I would like to remove the suggestion that RPG is object-oriented. I feel uncomfortable unilaterally editing it, as I'm completely new to this wiki, and I would at least like to see how other people feel about it first. From where I'm sitting, RPG is "perceived as not object-oriented" because it's simply not. At least not in the sense that anyone else in the world talking about OOP means. So, thoughts, anyone? [[User:Jky|jky]] ([[User talk:Jky|talk]]) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (CDT) | I would like to remove the suggestion that RPG is object-oriented. I feel uncomfortable unilaterally editing it, as I'm completely new to this wiki, and I would at least like to see how other people feel about it first. From where I'm sitting, RPG is "perceived as not object-oriented" because it's simply not. At least not in the sense that anyone else in the world talking about OOP means. So, thoughts, anyone? [[User:Jky|jky]] ([[User talk:Jky|talk]]) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I see the 'Objects and RPG' section as a bit odd as well, and I have over 3 decades of RPG experience. I think it was a way of trying to introduce IBM i into the topic. IBM i is quite important as far as RPG goes, because it is for all practical purposes impossible to separate RPG from IBM i. If you're still uncomfortable removing the lines, definitely feel free to make an edit that clarifies that RPG does not implement inheritance or polymorphism. We do have a limited subset of encapsulation though. [[User:Starbuck5250|Buck]] ([[User talk:Starbuck5250|talk]]) 15:09, 2 June 2014 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:09, 2 June 2014
I would like to remove the suggestion that RPG is object-oriented. I feel uncomfortable unilaterally editing it, as I'm completely new to this wiki, and I would at least like to see how other people feel about it first. From where I'm sitting, RPG is "perceived as not object-oriented" because it's simply not. At least not in the sense that anyone else in the world talking about OOP means. So, thoughts, anyone? jky (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (CDT)
I see the 'Objects and RPG' section as a bit odd as well, and I have over 3 decades of RPG experience. I think it was a way of trying to introduce IBM i into the topic. IBM i is quite important as far as RPG goes, because it is for all practical purposes impossible to separate RPG from IBM i. If you're still uncomfortable removing the lines, definitely feel free to make an edit that clarifies that RPG does not implement inheritance or polymorphism. We do have a limited subset of encapsulation though. Buck (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2014 (CDT)
