I definitely think he has a point though about being able to write procedurally in any language.
On another forum of which I am a member there was a request for some help with some Java. There were a few discussions about the benefit of OOP.
The guy then posted his code for the darts game (command line game) he was writing. It included one class called Game. In which there was a constructor method with the entire game played out in it.
It could have been written in BASIC. It took us a while but we managed to manipulate the code into some kind of OOP structure.
But yes, it is very possible to write procedurally in almost any language.
It isn't that I like to argue as much as I like to teach people to think ... that, and that I dislike letting things go which I think might mislead people.
Perhaps what I have to say could be said in fewer words ... but it would take both I and the other side to coordinate that presentation so that it would be efficient.
BTW, one of the reasons the procedural Java thing is very much in my mind is because I have paid a lot of attention over the last couple of years to the four companies that are offering services to translate ABL to Java or C#. The result of such translations is only nominally packaged in OO form, but is as procedural as the code it was taken from. Good OO happens because of clear concept, not by using OO forms.
Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice http://www.cintegrity.com
It isn't that I like to argue as much as I like to teach people to think ...
You think people around here need training in thinking???
Most people do, self included, especially when they are starting to work in a new area.
Despite having started with OO in a serious way back about 1995, I've had to do a lot of hard thinking the last year or two about how all of it applies in an ABL context and how to do it best. I've gotten some good mentoring in that from outside the ABL world for which I am very grateful.