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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 1995/04/22 Message-ID: <1995Apr22.171719.4120@rcmcon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101369021 references: <3n0uvi$8jt@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n3ilk$8vm@disunms.epfl.ch> <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n43p0$ehs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3n5oup$g2s@atlantis.utmb.edu> <1995Apr21.190040.7332@rcmcon.com> organization: R. C. M. Consulting Inc. 708-918-1004 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes: >I agree that "pure" is a loaded word and that we should stop using it. >However, I do see the benefits of having a language where classes and >basic built-in types and operating system resources are objects; >languages like that make it much easier to treat things consistently. Do you agree that a language in which *everything* is an object is intrinsically more limited than a language in which the programmer gets to decide what to put in an object and what to keep out? Do you also agree that programs designed for the first type of language can be implemented in the second type, more easily that vice versa? If so, do you agree that the benefits of the first type automatically transfer to the second type? >A well-designed class hierarchy that includes the basic types and >that's rooted in some class like Object or ANY can sometimes be quite >useful. Sometimes, although I generally prefer not to have a single root to the inheritance tree. >It's not foolish to make a distinction between languages that have >that sort of hierarchy and that have a base class from which all >classes inherit, and languages that don't. Agreed. "Pure" is probably the >wrong word to use for that distinction; can anyone suggest a better? Sure. Tree model languages have all objects rooted at some top level object. Forest model language can have many independent disconnected inheritance hierarchies. This is a nomenclature that has been used to describe class libraries. I think it covers languages quite nicely too. -- 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++