Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- Subject: Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- From: Peter Ammon <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:55:27 -0400
On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 07:26 PM, jgo wrote:
"Marco Scheurer" <email@hidden> Wed, 2001-09-12 12:49:03 +0200
On Wed, 2001-09-12 10:31:42 +0200 Ondra Cada <email@hidden>wrote:
BG wrote:
OK, since I'm too lazy to look it up, what _is_ the
opposite of OOP?...
Or does OOP not have an 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.
Those are all embellishments. The essence is the concept of
"object", that one is dealing with abstract "things" instead
of 'merely' variables and functions, that there are
abstract objects which have characteristics and behaviors.
This implies the rest: if it's an object then there is the
object and then there is everything else (encapsulation),
that one kind of object can be derived from another by adding
more specific characteristics and methods (inheritance)...
This is what most people think of now when they hear the term "object
oriented." It is not, however, the original meaning, and not what Alan
Kay had in mind when he coined the term. In fact, I'm told that he
regrets the term "object oriented" because it puts the focus on the
objects instead of on the messages, where he feels it belongs.
-Peter