Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> - even though it does appear to be mainstream indeed, it doesn't seem 
>> to fit the bill of "Non-OO ... (imperative) language".
> 
> It's not OO. There's a library to make it look like it's OO. When you 
> use that library, each object is represented as a global procedure. It 
> can kind of sort of look OO, but it isn't.

Given that I have the impression that you accept as OO only what has a 
certain runtime structure, instead of what aids in implementing an OO 
design, I prefer to trust Wikipedia on this matter.

If it /feels/ like OO (i.e. it supports your attempts at implementing an 
OO design), it /is/ OO.


>> As for Ada: When I think "mainstream", I don't usually think avionics, 
>> weapon systems or spacecraft - or any other embedded or real-time 
>> application, for that matter.
> 
> OK. When I say "mainstream", I mean a language that's actually used for 
> actual development by people other than those at the same company where 
> the language was invented. I rule out things like Blue and Sing# and 
> such, the experimental languages crafted for a specific program to be 
> written in.

That would (for most part) match "production" language in my set of 
definitions.

To be mainstream, something really needs to be... well, you know, in the 
/main/ stream.

You wouldn't call some clothes fashion to be mainstream just because 
people sell the clothes instead of sewing them at home for their own 
personal use, would you? Or call some musical style mainstream just 
because you can buy that type of music on audio CDs?

Post a reply to this message