Well, let me focus on that one thing. If I can define a class as a cluster of data values and/or subroutines, and instantiate objects in that class, then isn't that "object-oriented" even if it doesn't have any features to define inheritance from other classes? You may think it's a pretty feature-poor example of it, but what else would you call it if not "object-oriented"?
--- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* In order to write for "The A-Team", you'd have to be a much better writer than most of those who write the evening news at networks and local stations — forget about shows like "Hill Street Blues" or "The Muppet Show", where writing REALLY counts. -Linda Ellerbee in _And So It Goes_ */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 15:19 I'ld say that to be OO it must at least have inheritance. ________________________________________ From: Bob Bridges Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 2:30 PM Well, yeah. But a) I'm not far enough into that debate to understand all the issues and distinctions, and b) at any rate "object-oriented" means SOMETHING. As I said, when he wrote "dynamic" I was sure he didn't mean just "lively" or "ever-changing". Heck, I'm satisfied if "object-oriented" means merely that I can define objects and create instances of them. All the other stuff about inheritance and other even more arcane features, they're great, but I wouldn't say a language cannot be object-oriented without them. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 00:33 Actually, there's been a decades long language war over what object-oriented means. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
