Tracy R Reed wrote: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: >> "But now, years later, the essential meaning of OO is reasonably well >> understood." >> >> That statement alone makes me question the author's competence. >> >> There are about 9 characteristics that "define" OO (I wish I could >> find that article--I think it was on one of the Lisp resources). >> Every language seems to use a slightly different subset of those 9 and >> creates religious wars of the "We're real OO!"--"No you're not!" type. > > The essential meaning of OO is indeed reasonably well understood. You > are talking about the bickerings of pedants.
Exactly. There's a big difference between "the essential meaning" and "the particulars". Nearly all possible subsets of those nine characteristics embody the essence of OO, and the ones that don't are nonsensical enough that it'd be challenging to construct a language that functions (almost said "functional language" and then realized how confusing that'd be ;-). --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
