From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin) Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/21 Message-ID: <1995Apr21.192110.7609@rcmcon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101369050 references: <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n43p0$ehs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3n5oup$g2s@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n5r92$95@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3n60kc$gki@atlantis.utmb.edu> organization: R. C. M. Consulting Inc. 708-918-1004 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Curtis Bass writes: >Listen, "pure" does NOT necessarily mean "good" or "holy" or >"righteous." Do you really believe that? Come now. The word "pure" will always have the connotation of "goodness". That's why it is used so often to advertise toilet paper and douches. >Saying that C++ is not a "pure" OOPL is NOT saying that C++ is >"sinful" or "evil." But that is the way it will be interpreted. -- 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++