>> It would have /actually/ been OO if it had let you make fields private,
>> or if it supported dynamic binding. But noooo... :-P
>
> There is no language that "is OOP". OOP is a software design approach;
> An OO language (or OO language feature) is one that helps you implement
> such a design, but nothing more.

It came out around the time OOP was the latest crazy, and everything 
that wasn't OO was old and obsolete, and OO was the wave of the future. 
So they took the existing language, bolted on a few very superficially 
OO syntax elements, and said "Hey! Look! Our product is OO now! BUY IT!!"

About the only /useful/ thing it actually added was a per-type namespace 
for methods. What's it, really. You could /already/ group code and data 
together using modules, so the mere syntactic ability to write one 
inside the other isn't much of a big deal.

> BTW, I'm not sure whether they added any new syntax features to classes
> from 5.5 to 6.0, but AFAIR 6.0 *did* support polymorphism; I think the
> "Turbo Vision" framework made excessive use of it.

I gather Turbo Pascal eventually went on to become Delphi, which was 
briefly very successful. I believe that really was a full OO system.

Post a reply to this message