<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Ah yes Wallacy! That’s the point I’m making. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Procedural, Functional, Modular, and Object Oriented programming are different paradigms. Languages can cater to different paradigms by making it easier to code in some than others, but the paradigm has nothing to do with the language per se. You can do OO in C with function pointers, it just requires more typing.</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The point I’ve been trying to make to Jon is that POP is not a new paradigm, but it *is* a better syntax for the same paradigm. Better syntax is a great thing and deserves accolades, but don’t make it out for more than it is.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Wallacy <<a href="mailto:wallacyf@gmail.com" class="">wallacyf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">If you go further, you will realize that Objects are only Structures with some function pointers.<br class=""><br class="">The differences on structured programming and object-oriented programming can be reduced to a "syntax level" too.<br class=""><br class="">POP for example encourages more use of multiple (inheritance|composition) than OO. The pattern is more important than syntax.<br class=""><br class="">However I agree, Swift POP still have many limitations and almost no innovation. There are several proposed improvements to protocols that should arrive in the next versions, maybe then people start to consider POP a true paradigm. For now is just a syntax sugar for <u class="">Composition over inheritance</u>.</div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>