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: 103376,5394d9ca5f955366 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: pointers & OOP Date: 1999/05/04 Message-ID: <7gn7gr$fr5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 473948885 References: <$DL10CAsSgL3Iwj3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x11.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.4 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue May 04 16:33:31 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01SC-SGI (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Date: 1999-05-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <$DL10CAsSgL3Iwj3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk>, John Robinson wrote: > I still stand by the assertion that to do a full OO application you will > need to use pointers (smart or otherwise) somewhere along the line. > Yes, you can hide the implementation detail (and you should) but you > will still need them. You can assert anything, and you can stand by it, but that does not make it so. Please give some idea of why you think this. It seems plainly obvious to me that you can do full object oriented programming without pointers, and indeed I find pointers and OO to be pretty much orthogonal concepts, and so it is not surprising that they are orthogonal language features. Yes, closures need pointers, but we don't need closures for many kinds of OO programming! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own