In povray.general Mikael Carneholm <sa9### [at] idautbhbse> wrote:
: I think the main advantage of OO (from my point of view) would be _reading_
: the location/rotation/scale etc. of objects, instead of (as in the example):
: setting the values.

  Sorry for whining, but you (and apparently everyone else) keep calling
this object oriented although it isn't.
  Yes, this is an essential part of an object oriented language, but it's
not object oriented in itself.
  What you are talking about are modules. A programming language can use
modules without being an OO language (for example modula2 is one of those).
These languages have modules which have member functions and member variables,
public and private parts and so on. This, however, is not yet OO.
  For a programming language to be OO it has to have modules as in any
modular language AND it has to have support for inheritance, dynamic binding
and polymorphism. A program is object oriented when it uses these features
(mainly inheritance and dynamic binding). Else it just uses modules.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message