> > It sounds like you are trying to describe Reusing Code by modularizing
> > 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.
Explain to me how you use classes, Polymorphism and Inheritance in
straight C?
>
> > 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.
yep the DOM is an object and my guess is it wasn't written in a
scripting language.
>
> > 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.
>
I disagree.
-tim
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
