> it, which yes, is an aspect of OOP but isn't the full thing. You can''t
> write object oriented code without an object oriented language. the
> makes sense doesnt it?
Actually, no it doesn't make sense. Many people believe that C++ was
the language that brought OO to the masses. Is C++ any OO language?
Yes, but it wasn't in the beginning. When C++ was first introduced it
was simply a preprocessor for C. The same OO way of building
applications could have been done in C and in fact, some people
actually use C in a way that is best described as OO.
Remember folks, OOP is simply a way to structure your application. Some
languages make it easy to structure your application in an OO manner by
providing language constructs that map well, but that doesn't mean the
language constructs are required.
> If I were an OOP programmer using Java and C++ and someone told me that
> other people could callthemselves OOP programmers simply because they
> can create "objects" with HTML. I'd be kinda mad.
>
I don't know what you mean by objects in HTML, but ECMAScript can
certainly be used for OOP and the DOM is a perfect example of an
object.
> OOP is a fundamental concept of programming, but you can't program
> using
> OOP if you aren't using an OOP language.
>
Simply not true.
-Matt
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
