Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency

[rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)]

rmartin said:
>> Would that 'twere so.  Actually, all OOPLs are conducive to the
>> implementation of structured programs.   This must be so.  Consider
>> that a structure program is an amalgam of data structures and
>> functions.  In an OOPL we could create a single object which contains
>> all these data structures and functions.  Voila, a structured program
>> implemented in a OOPL.

Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu> writes:

>I maintain that this is STILL not a "strictly procedural" model,
>but is rather a very BAD OO model. 

Now wait.  I can implement a structured design in both C and
Smalltalk.  The semantics of the design will be identical in both
languages.   Are you saying that some mysterious attribute of the
language (which you call "purity) transforms this design from
"structured" to "object oriented" just because it happens to be
implemented in Smalltalk?  If so, then I submit that this mysterious
attribute is utterly useless since it cannot disambiguate a structure
design from an object oriented design.

>The bottom line is that all that your example illustrates is bad OO
>programming practice

It illustrates more than that.  It illustrates that the attribute that
you call "purity" does not enforce object oriented design, or good OO
programming practice.  So, of what value is this attribute?  What does
this attribute help us to do? 

>The term DOES have useful a definition, and I have provided
>one that's perfectly valid.

Validity is not the same as usefulness.  Defining a "pure OOPL" as "a
language in which everything is an object" is perfectly valid, but not
very useful.  The question that comes to mind is: "so what?" 

>As far as what I am saying" is concerned, what I am saying is
>simply this: C++ IS Object-Oriented, but not in the "pure" sense.
>Smalltalk IS "purely" Object-Oriented. You can write strictly
>procedural code in C++, You CANNOT in Smalltalk -- the best
>you can do in Smalltalk (or other "purely OOPL's) is to have
>just ONE object with all of your procedural code attached to it.
>THIS IS STILL OBJECT-ORIENTED, although very poorly so. 

Well, that is quite a stretch.  You are saying that any code written
in Smalltalk must be object oriented.  Of what use is this definition?


-- 
Robert Martin       | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor Assoc.| rmartin@rcmcon.com  |   Object Oriented Analysis
2080 Cranbrook Rd.  | Tel: (708) 918-1004 |   Object Oriented Design
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 |   C++