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: Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu>
Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency
Date: 1995/04/20
Message-ID: <3n5oup$g2s@atlantis.utmb.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101281562
references: <dewar.797512974@gnat> <3n0uvi$8jt@atlantis.utmb.edu>
 <3n3ilk$8vm@disunms.epfl.ch> <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu>
 <3n43p0$ehs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
organization: Office of Academic Computing
newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol
Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) wrote:
>
> In article <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu>,
> 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.
> >
> Curtis, please cite the references you have used to gain this silly
> notion.

#1. The fact that you dismiss this "notion" as "silly" proves
    to me that your mind is made up, and that you are not
    willing to listen, learn, or expand your horizons in any
    way. If you wish to remain ignorant, then, obviously, I
    cannot prevent it.

#2. I know what "pure" means, and I know what "object-oriented"
    means. Also, I know what "paradigm," "structured," and
    "model" mean. Ergo, I can state what "pure object-oriented
    programming language" means, based on the definitional
    building-blocks I already have at my disposal.

#3. I have seen the term "pure" used to describe languages
    such as Actor, Smalltalk, and Eiffel in printed articles
    in widely available trade magazines. However, I have no
    intention of rummaging through all of my Dr. Dobbs and
    Computer Language back issues in order to pacify you. I
    don't remember which article or column, out of the hundreds
    that are in those magazines, actually contain the reference,
    nor do I care. I know what I know. If you decide to reject
    it, then I couldn't care less. There are others in this
    newsgroup who think that the distinction between "pure"
    and "impure" OOPL's is minor. I do not. Who is right?
    We ALL are. Or, in other words, Who Cares?

    Someone asked, "Why is C++ an 'impure' OOPL?" I simply
    answered his question. If you have problems with this,
    then I am sorry. Really.

#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.


				Curtis Bass
				Software Systems Specialist II
				University of Texas Medical Branch