Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!nick From: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: object-oriented this, that, and the other thing Message-ID: <1208@castle.ed.ac.uk> Date: 27 Nov 89 12:35:55 GMT References: <2426@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <190@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <1561@novavax.UUCP> <76915@linus.UUCP> <984@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1959@tukki.jyu.fi> <1115@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1673@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk> Reply-To: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) Organization: LFCS Enya Admiration Society Lines: 21 In-reply-to: scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley) In article <1673@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk>, scc@cl (Stephen Crawley) writes: >I wish people would stick to the well established definitions of terms >like "object-oriented" and not go around inventing new & incompatible >ones for no good reason! Such as? I've seen no definition of "object oriented" which would rule out Dave's description above. I've read the first 5 or so chapters of Meyer's book, and everything he describes as characterising OO programming, and the benefits, applies equally well to the Standard ML Module system, which isn't object oriented (or is it?). >-- Steve Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk !mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "You're gonna jump!?" "No, Al. I'm gonna FLY!" Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com