Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- Subject: Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:31:42 +0200
Brent,
>
>>>>> Brent Gulanowski (BG) wrote at Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:04:11 -0400:
BG> OK, since I'm too lazy to look it up, what _is_ the opposite of OOP?
Sorry, dunno.
BG> Functional? Please don't say something like non-OOP... ;) But you can
BG> tell me to RTFM if you can find me a good M.
I'd like to find some myself... I don't have a good dictionary aimed to
informatics; my generic Webster does not help here naturally. Perhaps
something could be found on Web.
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.
OTOH, the OOP which we all know and use, be it the static compile-time thing
of Ada or the dynamic late-binding thing of Smalltalk, happens to be a
procedural programming as well as OOP.
Quite simply, whenever we are saying the computer _what it should do_, we
are using procedural programming, regardless inheritance and its companions
can be applied or not. Whenever, though, we are saying the computer _what
result we want to get_ (letting it to find a way to compute it itself), we
are using declarative programming -- again, regardless inheritance and
companions can be applied or not.
---
Ondra Cada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc