Re: Georg looks at that Georg! ;-)
Re: Georg looks at that Georg! ;-)
- Subject: Re: Georg looks at that Georg! ;-)
- From: Marco Scheurer <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:12:58 +0100
In current computer science terminology (and as the term has been used
for the past fifteen years), this makes C++ an object-oriented
language. I'll agree there are some differences in the Obj-C paradigm
that give it some advantages. However, understanding these doesn't
change the definition of OO as it is used today. You can argue till
you're blue in the face that the original or "real" definition is
different and that marketing has hijacked the definition (I'm not sure
how much marketing really occurred with C++; now Java -- _that's_
marketing) but the fact is the hijacking is a fait accompli. That's
language for you.
C++ success was not because of its "object-oriented" features, but
because it was perceived as a "better C than C", thanks to strong
typing.
There's little doubt that the term object-oriented has been abused
(Alan Kay reportedly said: "I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I
can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind"), but more than a marketing
plot, I think it was an honest mistake by people who fail to understand
the differences between Smalltalk and C++.
Marco Scheurer
Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland
http://www.sente.ch
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.