Re: PURE OOPLs vs HYBRID OOPLs

[donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison)]

Fahrul Hakim wrote (some interesting observations including)..

: in contrast, experienced oop intuitively know what the crucial objects
:are
: in a given problem domain.  they do not tink in algorithm, but rather in
: classes, abstraction, and relatins among objects.  To acquire the ability
: to think object-oriented, it is easire to start learning with a pure
: object-oriented language (are you agree with me ????). 

I think you're right.

: When everything is
: an object and every operations is performed by means of a message, the
: programmer is forced to abandon conventional thought patters.  

Yes, in some ways, a different way of thinking is required. In other ways,
OOP is just the formalisation of sound software engineering principles that 
anyone can impose on themselves. In this sense, pure OOPs help by directly 
supporting and imposing these principles. As we all know, many developers 
familiar with non-OO languages reject pure OOPs due to the restrictions they 
impose. They prefer to think that they can do a better job by having greater 
freedom. Such thinking is misguided, IMO.

: We therefore recommend starting objet-oreinted progamming with a pure
: obejct-oriented language even if a hybrid language is to be used
: afterwards.

That's certainly my experience. I learnt OOP through Eiffel and find its 
application (including Design by Contract) to non-OO Ada83 beneficial.


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au