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: Curtis Bass Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/21 Message-ID: <3n8nr1$l3l@atlantis.utmb.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101368981 references: <3mbmd5$s06@icebox.mfltd.co.uk> <3mcfbf$psl@acmez.gatech.edu> <3mgnkc$e3j@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3mk65q$1kti@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <3muavq$46u@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n8idf$jer@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Office of Academic Computing newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) wrote: > > In article <3muavq$46u@atlantis.utmb.edu>, Curtis Bass > writes: > > |> ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) wrote: > .... > |> > It is easy to do a straightforward transliteration of a > |> > Fortran IV program into Smalltalk, for example. -- snip -- > |> The bottom line is that your "straightforward transliteration > |> of a Fortran IV program into Smalltalk" will STILL result in > |> an Object-Oriented program, although it will have bad OO > |> Design. There is no way around it -- your procedures cannot > |> exist as independent entities; they must be attached to an > |> object. > > That's a pretty superficial definition of what constitutes OOP. > Given that all-encompassing definition, there's no point in wasting time > discussing what attributes OO programs might or might not possess. You missed the point. Plain and simple. I guess you are one of the many who simply don't WANT to get it. I don't understand why this is, and why people INSIST on being offended by all of this. > Mechanically applying labels is a silly exercise. Suppose I were to > write a new language named Bigtalk. Its reference manual is identical to > the Smalltalk manual, except that all occurrences of the word "object" > have been replaced by "egg salad" (after which the sentence "Some > computer scientists egg salad to this approach," has been restored to its > original form). Would you say that if the Fortran transliteration is fed > to a Bigtalk interpreter instead of a Smalltalk interpreter, it now > consitutes an egg-salad-oriented program instead of an object-oriented > program, because all procedures are attached to egg salads? Technically, the answer to your question is "yes." So what? If you want to think that "object-oriented" is as meaningless as "egg salad," as a definition of a paradigm, then that's your business. Just don't tell me that I have to think the way you do. Decreeing that your opinion on this matter must be treated as the universal truth is ill-advised. Besides, as I have stated, this misses the point entirely. It appears that those who object to the term "object-oriented" are not aware of what is is, what it means, or what benefits it provides. > Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com Curtis Bass Software Systems Specialist II University of Texas Medical Branch