clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >    An object-oriented language is a programming language that supports
> > the necessary features for OOP natively.

> That would qualify Assembler and C as object-oriented: They both 
> natively support /all/ features that are really /necessary/ for OOP 
> (actually for /every/ concept commonly associated with OOP).

  I can't fathom how you are understanding my sentence as meaning the
*exact opposite* of what it's saying.

  Assembler and C are precisely *not* OOP languages because they do *not*
have any kind of native support for OOP features. If you want any kind of
object-oriented programming, you'll have to hack those features manually
because the languages themselves offer no support whatsoever.

> You /can/ do OOP with plain old ANSI C.

  So what? That doesn't make it an OOP language.

> I'd say, an object-oriented language is a language that provides 
> syntactic sugar specifically for OO concepts. Syntactic sugar isn't a 
> /necessary/ feature for OOP though.

  I said in my post "do not confuse object-oriented programming with an
object-oriented programming language", and you are doing exactly that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message