Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   Well, that's a question of good modular design.

> Right. And if your language doesn't support modularization, it can't be 
> OO, right? :-)

  You don't need the compiler to have some automatic memory management
system in order for the language to be object-oriented.

> You can do OO programming in C++, by implementing your own memory 
> management.

  If you don't implement your own memory management that doesn't mean C++
is not an OO language. It just means your OO design is crappy, that's all.
  C++ is an OO language regardless of how someone uses it.

> Just like you can do OO programming in C by implementing 
> your own memory management and dynamic dispatch.

  You can simulate a kind of poor OO in C, but I would not call it
an OO language.
  For instance, C's "modules" (structs) can't have a public interface
and a private part and you must make quite ugly hacks to implement
dynamic binding and inheritance.

> >   In a good OO language the state of the module can (or even better, must)
> > be private to the module

> Which is exactly what the automatic memory management addresses.

  Now you completely lost me.
  What the h*** does the state of a module have to do with memory
management?

  I think you are *completely* misunderstanding what the state of
a module instance is.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message