On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Breton, > > There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented > programming.
Yes you say that, but you never go into any detail about it. In what way in particular is the concept and use of "objects" independant from "object orient programming". Did the concept of "objects" *not* come from smalltalk, the original OOP language? Can you cite any occurance of the concept of an "object" in programming that predates smalltalk? Do you then, think it's therefore possible to create a language with Objects that is not in any way inspired by, or derivative of smalltalk? Because honestly, I'm confused about where you think the concept of OOP came from to begin with. > Coad / Yourdon suggests object-oriented being classes and > objects, inheritance and communication with messages. Does JavaScript have > classes? Can inheritance of JavaScript occur without prototype? > Those are typical elements in OOP languages, yes, and they all existed in the original smalltalk. Are you suggesting that any slight deviation from small talk renders a language completely not OOP? If that were the case, you would pretty much have to rule out any language that was not smalltalk itself. But let's assume you have a less extreme position. What is your methodology to determine how far a language can deviate from smalltalk before it is no longer OOP? You seem fixated on the concept of classical inheritence being essential for a language to be OOP, but this is contradicted by the existance of numerous OOP languages that do not have classes. How do you account for this? Javascript in fact, does have classes, but not as a mechanism of inheritence. Javascript's inheritence is prototypal. You seem to be suggesting that this makes it not OOP. I would like to suggest that if this makes Javascript not OOP, then you would have to say that a dozen other OOP langauges are also not OOP. The choice of class as a defining characteristic of OOP seems arbitrary. If you can suggest that any arbitrary deviation, such as class, from smalltalk makes a language not OOP, then C++ and JAVA are not OOP either, due to their numerous deviations. > May I provide the following resource, pointing out second paragraph under > 'Adding a Method': > http://www.kevlindev.com/tutorials/javascript/inheritance/index.htm > > Object-oriented programming consists of native inheritance. Are you > suggesting that a prototypical approach to inheritance one in the same as > native inheritance? > This is a red herring. With this, you have attempted to change the topic from whether javascript is OOP or not, to whether it has classical inheritence or not. Or, if you have not changed the topic, you appear to be assuming that everyone is in agreement that classes are a required attribute of OOP. This is arbitrary and nonsensical. > Thanks, > Anthony. > > Breton Slivka wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Luke, > > Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is JavaScript > object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out > that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if JavaScript > were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it > is of my opinion that JavaScript is more prototype than anything else. > > Thanks, > Anthony. > > > Yes that's fine anthony, but the problem is that statement doesn't > actually mean anything. it is logically invalid, and quite nonsensical > to say "javascript is not object oriented, it's more prototype based", > because the two things are not mutually exclusive. Javascript having > prototypical inheritence has absolutely nothing to do with the > question of whether it is object oriented or not. It can be both > object oriented, AND based on prototypal inheritence, and in fact, it > is both. 100%. This is not my opinion. it is a fact. > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
