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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101281686 references: <3n0uvi$8jt@atlantis.utmb.edu> organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3n43p0$ehs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes: > >If I can write a procedure that is NOT attached to an object, > >then I am NOT using a "PURE" OOPL. > > > Curtis, please cite the references you have used to gain this silly > notion. Who needs a definition? It's apparently his definition of the word "pure". Definitions are arbitrary; he can define the phrase "pure object-oriented language" however he feels like. The rest of us, of course, don't have to accept that the way he distinguishes between "pure" and "impure" languages is a particularly useful distinction. Personally, I don't. I think that this distinction is almost completely trivial: whether or not functions must always be attached to classes is an essentially syntactic issue. -- Matt Austern matt@physics.berkeley.edu http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt