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.
Really?
Are objects containers? Do they have their own state? Are they just
collections of functions? Are new objects always created or the old
object mutated? Inheritance? Multiple inheritance? Dynamism? Single
or multiple dispatch? Function call or message passing? Is identity or
class mutable? Are objects a primary type or only the members?
So what "defines" OO? Hmmmm?
For every definition of OO you cite, some other language disagrees.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
