• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• To: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:16:34 -0600 (MDT)

> OO is just language support for a common pattern, that behaviour is bound
> to bits of data, and you can substitute things for other things if they
> both support the interface required for that role.

That's the problem.  I don't buy this as a definition of OO.  There are
other models that are not OO that expound the same tenets.  OO is just one
model that uses the above ideas, but in a somewhat limited way.

I think the argument has pretty much come down to the basis, and as
usual, the disagreement is merely one of definition.

Thanks for the ride.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@f...               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
    • From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: APIs, messaging
• Next by Date: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Previous by thread: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Next by thread: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread