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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e80a1497a689d8a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Ammo-zilla Date: 1999/11/02 Message-ID: <7vmjor$opj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 543465283 References: <38120FAF.945ADD7D@hso.link.com> <7uutgd$87h$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <19991024.18033546@db3.max5.com> <38189268.43EB150F@mail.earthlink.net> <3818B280.472FDBE5@averstar.com> <7vkj3p$auo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 02 12:00:27 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-11-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Brian Rogoff wrote: > > I find it continually confusing that people confuse a > > programming paradigm (OOP) with some features in the language > > that are useful for supporting this paradigm. > > I'm not confusing anything. Since OOP, and Ada's function call > notation are under discussion, comparisons with non-OOP > languages are weak. To me there is no such thing as an OOP language, since OOP is not a language feature, it is a programming paradigm, which can of course be used in any language. One can certainly discuss the ease and convenience of using this paradigm in a particular language. And one can bias the language syntax to make this particular paradigm particularly convenient. But I think that is a mistake, since the fundamental notions of inheritance, dynamic dispatching, and type extension are far more powerful, and cover a much wider range of programming styles and approaches than simply OOP. If you specialize the syntax too much for OOP, then you will make these useful features much less available for other uses, and that is what has happened in several other languages. I particularly dislike the style of C++ programming where you write conventional abstract data types, with a functional and procedural style, and are then forced into the inappropriate dot notation for calling functions which have nothing whatsoever to do with objects or "distinguished receivers". Maybe my experience is atypical, but I see this kind of C++ program FAR more frequently than I see real object oriented programs (that does not surprise me, the notion of ADT's is to me far more general than the notion of objects). (of course the programmers of these C++ programs are actually under the illusion they are doing object oriented programming, because they are using the word class, and everyone knows that C++ is an "object oriented programming language".) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.