Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out

[mark_lundquist@my-deja.com]

In article <93oa9k$fvc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <93nshs$400$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   mark_lundquist@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In some ways I prefer the term "abstraction-oriented
> > programming", because the term "OOP" has become so muddled.
>
> Well I think the notion of OOP *should* be clear enough, but
> many people use the term to refer to abstraction-oriented
> programming, which is of course a far more extensive concept.
> Similarly, for a lot of programmers, an object and an abstract
> data type are equivalent concepts.
>
> I think it was a right decision in the Ada design to avoid
> giving too much of a distinuished position to OOP as such,
> since it is only one tool in the kit of the
> abstraction-oriented programmer.


As near as I can tell, OOP means either (a) class-oriented programming,
or (b) inheritance (type extension) + polymorphism (dynamic dispatch).

Class-oriented programming, in my opinion, is a weak concept.  But if
all that is meant is type extentsion and polymorphism, then just as you
say they are one tool of many in the kit (and not really deserving of
such a grandiloquent designation as Object Oriented Programming).

That's why I think OOP is such a crummy term.



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/