erik quanstrom wrote: >> Finally, to argue that files are not objects seems silly. They ARE >> objects. They have properties. They have well defined interfaces for >> manipulating those properties. A more reasonable argument may be that >> they are not object oriented since they lack certain prerequisites such >> as inheritance and abstraction, both mechanisms of extensibility. > > so files are non-object-oriented objects? > > i bet you can't say that without smiling.
Troll. And I am smiling :-p. Objects are defined as data structures with associated methods for manipulating them. Object oriented programming requires four key attributes: encapsulation, inheritance, abstraction, and polymorphism. Object oriented programming is a more sophisticated programming discipline. Objects do not imply object oriented programming, although object oriented programming implies objects. You're merely confounding the issue by playing a naive semantical game based on the commonality of the word "object."
