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,e80a1497a689d8a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Ammo-zilla Date: 1999/11/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 543792240 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$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vmjor$opj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 941599232 231 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Robert Dewar wrote: > 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. The fact that you think there is no such thing as an OOP language doesn't stop the many programmers from using the term. I think most people wouldn't put Haskell in that category. Similarly, there may be no such thing as a "functional programming language", but most people would use some criteria (presence of first class functions, lexical scope, ...) to determine membership in this class. This is way off topic, and actually, I agree with almost everything you wrote anyways... -- Brian