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

[rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)]

>> Curtis Bass  <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu> wrote:
>> >If I can write a procedure that is NOT attached to an object,
>> >then I am NOT using a "PURE" OOPL.
>> >

>dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) wrote:
>> Curtis, please cite the references you have used to gain this silly
>> notion.

Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu> writes:
>#4. What I WILL do is refer you to Grady Booch's FIRST edition
>    of "Object-Oriented Design with Applications," appendix A2,
>    page 474. I will NOT reprint the relevant text. Go look it
>    up yourself.

Here it is:

    [Speaking of Smalltalk] 'It is a "pure" object oriented
    programming language, in that everything is viewed as an object -
    even integers and classes.'

------

Notice how much emotion has been shed over this argument?  The reason
is that "pure" is an emotionally charged word.    The argument has
been made in this group, many times, that students would be better off
learning a "pure" OOPL, or that applications are better if programmed
in a "pure" OOPL.  

What these arguments do not do, is what Grady did above.  He defined
the term.  

As it happens, I don't much care for Grady's definition.  For one
thing, I don't understand the benefit of 'purity' as he describes it.
In fact, he was not claiming any such benefit to exist.  For another,
I don't like coupling that definition with a word that carries such
emotional baggage.


-- 
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++