Kazimir Majorinc <kmajor@jagor.srce.hr> a �crit dans l'article
<58b9jt$jhh@bagan.srce.hr>...
> Hello!
> 2. Encapsulation, I mean that both data and functions are together in
> object seems to me like very unnatural shape today. Look at
> mathemathics. Mathematical language do not use that paradigm, although
> things which are described there are more complex than any software.  

that's because what you can with types in mathematics is not a finite
state. What you can do with objects (classes) is supposed to be known and
finite.

> ... If I overload operators, for
> example + in C++, I have disgusting when I use object model, and I have
> to prefer first element, when there is absolutely no reasons for that.

That's why we should use friend functions...

> 3. Polymorphism. The greatest part of OO. I understand wish, but look at
> C++. Why if I want to do this things, I have to do it implicitely. I
> mean why functions which overload each other should have same name? It
> is better to do it explicitely, to say which function is overload of
> which. Now things could be simpler. I do not know how to do it in
> procedural paradigm, but I believe that it is somehow possible.

Because at an abstract level, you may want different (derived) objects do a
certain stuff without caring with how it will be performed (like a base or
overloaded way).
 
> 6. Messages. I do not know a lot of this, but Idea that object change
> himself alone remembers me at the days of programming on TI57, or in
> assembler, when every instruction is on so called accumulator. OO wants
> accumulator back.
???


-- 
Chris, drunk philosoph and bad programmer
"The nail pulling up calls the hammer"
                                     zen proverb