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: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/20 Message-ID: <3n5r92$95@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101281568 references: <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n43p0$ehs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3n5oup$g2s@atlantis.utmb.edu> organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3n5oup$g2s@atlantis.utmb.edu>, Curtis Bass wrote: >dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) wrote: >> >> In article <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu>, >> Curtis Bass 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. > >[Moderate flames deleted] Um, was it just me, or did Curtis shed more heat than light? All I"m asking is for you to answer the question. I saw Grady's comments, but I'd hardly consider that some kind of philosophical foundation. I certainly wouldn't build a house on it (or even a doghouse :-) Perhaps a better way to formulate it is: How do you defend syntactic differences as somehow rendering something more "pure" than another? -- Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran? Ada95 _might_ be for you! For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command: "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.) if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada :-)