Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- Subject: Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- From: John Hörnkvist <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:13:33 +0200
On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, at 10:31 AM, Ondra Cada wrote:
BG> Or does OOP not have an
BG> opposite except declarative, being actually a special kind of
procedural?
AFAIK this is _partially_ right.
So far as I understand those terms properly, then OOP vs. non-OOP
(sorry) is
actually orthogonal to procedural vs. declarative distinction: although
the
only (more or less) declarative language I know of is Prolog which is
not OO,
I can imagine another Prolog-like system, which would use its own
abstraction of objects.
Indeed, there are several declarative (functional or logical), object
oriented languages. OCAML and O'Haskell come to mind.
(For something that is very close to Prolog, but a pure logical
programming language, have a look at Mercury. It used to compile on Mac
OS X.)
I prefer the term "imperative" over procedural.
Regards,
John Hornkvist
--
ToastedMarshmallow, the perfect Cocoa companion
http://www.toastedmarshmallow.com