Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > 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'd probably call them OO in another guise or scenario, like the component
model is a kind of coarse-grain OO :-)
> I think the argument has pretty much come down to the basis, and as
> usual, the disagreement is merely one of definition.
Quite likely!
> Thanks for the ride.
Pleasure. Was it fund for the passengers, everyone?
ABS
--
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
|
