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

[rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)]

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

>In a pure OOPL, it is virtually impossible to avoid encapsulation.
>In a hybrid, data and procedures can exist as separate entities.
>Encapsulation is not enforced, and can be abandoned entirely.

If, in Smalltalk, I put all the procedures and all the data structures
into a single object, then I have avoided and abandoned encapsulation
for all intents and purposes.  The data are just as encapsulated as
they would be in C.

Oh I agree that there is still an object that encapsulates all that
data and procedure; but nobody references it, so the data is not
encaspulated away from anyone.  i.e. if I put a fence around the
universe, I am not really doing anything useful.

>Also, this has a MAJOR affect on program organization.

But it doesn't, and you have agreed with that.  A procedural design
can be implemnented in smalltalk; thus smalltalk need have no affect
at all on program organization.

Now, this is the crux, is OO a matter of language syntax, or a matter
of program organization?  I presume that most people would agree that
the benfits of OO accrue because of the program structure; i.e. it is
the program structure that is object oriented, and not the language
syntax.  I submit that the definition of OO, should be related more
to the program structure than a language syntax.


-- 
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++