Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you consider "modular" to be a programming paradigm then... yes, I 
> guess.

  Yes, modular programming is usually considered a programming paradigm
of its own (a type of precursor of object-oriented programming).

  I think that the quintessential example of a modular programming
language is Modula-2: Its modules are more or less full-fledged classes
(public and private parts, member variables and functions, instanciation,
references to such instances...), except for what would make it an
object-oriented programming language: Inheritance.

  (Modula-3 added inheritance, making it an OOP language.)

> (Does Pascal count as "module" too?)

  Pascal is a programming language, not a module. :P

> Did I mention that Haskell also has "classes"? (Though they don't work 
> quite the same as in OOP.)

  If you can inherit and have dynamic binding (or a messaging system,
ie. delegation) then it would more or less make it an OOP language,
else it's just a modular programming language.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message