nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   The fact is: If a programming language supports types, if it also
> > supports abstract user-defined types, it becomes an order of magnitude
> > more expressive and useful. And abstract user-defined types are objects
> > (in the OO sense).

> But that's within a function composition environment.

  Ah, so we avoid being related to the dreaded Object-Oriented Programming
(vade retro) by using different terminology for the same things. Then we
can write long lists of reasons why *our* terms do not *really* mean the
same things as the equivalent OOP terms.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message