Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- Subject: Re: opposite of OOP (was file extensions)
- From: jgo <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:26:19 -0700
>
"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)...
John G. Otto, Eagle Scout, Knight, Cybernetic Praxeologist
Existence, Consciousness, Identity, Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, Justice