Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > *Now* you're talking about something OOP- and programming-related:
> > Modularization. But what on earth does your previous post's talk of "concepts",
> > pens, cars, dogs and cats have to do with this?
>
>   In object-oriented programming a class is basically a user-defined type,
> and a user-defined type is a concept. For example, "a string" is a concept,
> and a string class is the implementation of that concept.

Yeah yeah yeah... sure... I'm repeating myself here: *I* know how to map your
words to OOP, so you needn't tell me. It still doesn't convince me that
OOP-newbies have any idea what this cats & dogs crap is all about, and
introducing OOP in a much different way would make it much easier to grasp.

Let alone that OOP is not just "OOP". It is a combination of multiple concepts,
many of which don't require each other; the typical blurp tries to introduce
the whole "concept" of OOP all at once, instead of introducing the concepts one
by one.

> [lotsa stuff skipped]

>   Modular programming does know the concept of instantiating modules. For
> example the modula programming language (which is not an OOP language) has
> modules with public and private interfaces, and which can be instantiated
> and referenced. (What makes it non-OOP is that it doesn't support inheritance
> nor obviously dynamic binding.)

.... and that's a very typical example of how modularity is commonly percieved,
huh?

Yes, modules occasionally *are* instantiated and referenced; but in typical
modular projects they're *not*, and instead just resemble code libraries.

Post a reply to this message