Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- Subject: Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- From: "Marco Scheurer" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:49:03 +0200
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:31:42 +0200 Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
wrote:
>
BG> OK, since I'm too lazy to look it up, what _is_ the
>
BG> opposite of OOP?
>
>
[...]
>
>
BG> Or does OOP not have an
>
BG> opposite except declarative, being actually a special
>
kind of procedural?
>
>
AFAIK this is _partially_ right.
I believe that what makes OOP languages different from
others is the message: sending a message, using
polymorphism, is different from a procedure call.
>
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.
Yes, see for instance COOL (the Clips Object Oriented
Language) which is an OO extension of the CLIPS expert
system shell. Of course, more or less pure functional
languages also had their OO extensions, CLOS for instance.
Conversely, conventional OO languages only encapsulate
attributes and methods, while it could be argued that they
should or could also encapsulate declarative rules.
Marco Scheurer
Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland
http://wwww.sente.ch