perfect, but it works well, I think.
OOP is programming where the domain entities (users, tasks, products,
whatever) are encapsulated into modular chunks where the implementation is
separate from the interface. OO applications are build by creating
additional non-domain entities which exist purely to relate the domain
entities together in meaningful ways, and are themselves modularized and
encapsulated in the same way.
You can get very OO behaviour out of a non-OO language, and you can get very
non-OO behaviour out of OO languages. However, it's generally easier to get
OO behaviour out of an OO language, and non-OO behaviour out of a non-OO
language.
Take CF for example of the first, CFObjects exposed some good OO concepts
without any help from the language. Not to say it was a remarkably good
solution, but it is a solution. On the flip side, you can write entire
applications in Java that use exclusively static methods and no domain
objects, just classes with related static methods within them.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:32 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OOP Definition - Its a matter of semantics and
> we all know wh at he means
>
> I think that's a great reference:
>
> "Object-oriented (OO) applications can be written in either
> conventional languages or OOPLs, but they are much easier to
> write in languages especially designed for OO programming. "
>
> - Calvin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Hanbey
> To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: OOP Definition - Its a matter of semantics and
> we all know wh at he means
>
>
> as an example
>
> This is what the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering
> Institute has to say
>
> http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/oopl_body.html
>
> Tim Hanbey wrote:
>
> > Depends on who accepts the definition.. If it was widely
> accepted, there
> > wouldn't be a debate.
> >
> > Matt Liotta wrote:
> >
> > > While many may debate what OOP means to them, there is
> an accepted
> > > definition within the computer science field. Gotta
> love academics...
> > >
> > >
> http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?object-oriented+p
rogramming
> > >
> > > Matt Liotta
> > > Montara Software, Inc.
> > > http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
> > >
> > > On Jan 7, 2004, at 3:21 PM, Kevin Marino wrote:
> > >
> > > > Though, its been fun following the OOP "definition" thread, I
> > offer the
> > > > final end of this
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Google the following : definition of "object oriented
> > programming"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pick your personal favorite. I like "Web Definition"
> and webopedia
> > > > definition. By those 2 def.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'nough said.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greets
> > > > Kevin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PS. Props to Adam for the nicely done acronym
> > > > SJOCSOCPSAYBNVFTSMFOWHYSADALYAHTMLC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kevin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
