Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:

>  > you accept as OO only what has a certain runtime structure

> No, I call something OO if it has more "OO" to it than (say) stdio.h. :-) It 
> needs objects, and data associated with objects, and stuff like that.

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

> Tcl's an extensible language. People have written libraries that emulate 
> some aspects of OO.  Tcl is no more OO than C is OO because someone invented 
> cfront.  Just like the existence of Candygram doesn't make Python an 
> actor-based language.

  I think one should distinguish between Object-Oriented Design (OOD) and
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). While the distinction might often be
rather fuzzy, and often they are very tied together (because, after all,
implementing an OOD is often best done with an OOP language), they can
still be used independently.

  For example, many programs have a full-fledged OOD but are then
implemented in a language which supports little to no OOP, most
typically C (and even when OOP is more or less "emulated" with C, only
very few actual OOP techniques are used).

  (The other extreme might also be possible in some cases, ie. "abusing"
an OOP language for a design which has very little object-orientedness
in it. Could eg. be more akin to objects being "abused" for functional
design and programming techniques.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message