Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE t

[ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)]

jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) writes:
>I think this is a bit misleading.
>OO program texts are definitely systems of classes (or, rather, textual  
>representations of classes).

This is an overgeneralisaton.  Not every OO language is class based.
The OO system in Xlisp-Stat, for example, is not class based,
and nor is SELF.  Nor need there be any text or fixed collection of
texts that describes a SELF program.  SELF is not alone in this:  I have
used a GUI builder where you constructed _objects_ on the screen that
were then dumped out as textul representations to be used to construct
_objects_, not classes.

>> The architecture and design of a program is a function of what **objects**
>> it contains and how they interact.

>Well, now I have to disagree.

Well, no, you don't.  What you _do_ have to do is understand that there is
more than one way to skin a cat, and that in some OO languages you _do_
describe objects and methods that are attached to objects (individual
objects, not classes), while in some other OO languages you _don't_.
Looked at NewtonScript lately?

-- 
Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote!
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.