Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency

[matomira@di.epfl.ch (Fernando Mato Mira)]

In article <3n60kc$gki@atlantis.utmb.edu>, Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu> writes:

> says, "everything is an object" in Smalltalk -- there are no
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You got it. This is the definition of pure OO. Even your
control structures are objects.

If you look at Lisp, for example, it is definitely not pure because you have
normal non-virtual functions, control structures are not objects, etc.

However, all functions (even `dirty ones') are objects. Methods are objects
stored in a generic function. Methods contain specializer lists (objects),
which contain references to classes (or `eql specializers).

As you can see, in some sense the classes are `inside' the methods. Note
that this does not happen in a language like C or Pascal. So, in some
sense, it's a reverse world, and very object-oriented.

Also, CLOS can be even considered `not really object-oriented' because
of the lack of encapsulation. This has nothing to do with all the stuff
above, but with the lack of a better module system. 
Cecil looks at object-orientedness very much like Ada, and CLOS, and
has solved the encapsulation problem in a great way.

You seem to be very concerned about philosophical issues, so if
you haven't done it yet, I would recommend you to take a look at CLOS and Cecil;
not necessarily to use them, but you should find it very stimulating 
and I'm sure it'll open your mind to whole new perspectives on OO..

Regards,

PS: I'm not saying that Cecil is `pure'. But the same argument holds..

-- 
F.D. Mato Mira           http://ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html                  
Computer Graphics Lab    matomira@epfl.ch 
EPFL                     FAX: +41 (21) 693-5328