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

[osinski@valis.cs.nyu.edu (Ed Osinski)]

In article <1995Apr21.192110.7609@rcmcon.com>, rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin) writes:
|> Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu> writes:
|> 
|> >Listen, "pure" does NOT necessarily mean "good" or "holy" or
|> >"righteous." 
|> 
|> Do you really believe that?  Come now.  The word "pure" will always
|> have the connotation of "goodness".  That's why it is used so often to
|> advertise toilet paper and douches.
|> 
|> >Saying that C++ is not a "pure" OOPL is NOT saying that C++ is
|> >"sinful" or "evil."
|> 
|> But that is the way it will be interpreted.

I would have to agree.  I wonder how strongly people would argue about 
how something is "a pure object-oriented language" if "a pure" is replaced
with "just an".

|> 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++

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ed Osinski                  
 Computer Science Department, New York University         
 E-mail:  osinski@cs.nyu.edu 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of
religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave
to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of
violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film.  This was
the Spanish Inquisition...
				-- Monty Python's Flying Circus