Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cam-cl!scc
From: scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: object-oriented this, that, and the other thing
Message-ID: <1679@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Nov 89 01:03:43 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> <1208@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Lines: 26

> In article <1673@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk>, I wrote:
>> 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!

Nick Rothwell replied:
> Such as

Wegner's taxonomy for example.  OK so he made some mistakes in his
1987 OOPSLA paper, but he has apparently fixed this in later versions
of the taxonomy.  At any rate it is a good place to start.

I thought Modula-3 was a (Wegner) OO language that had no dynamic binding, 
but on reading the report, I find that I mis-remembered.   

ML would not recognised by many (most?) researchers as OO because does
not have an inheritence mechanism.  

Me ... I don't think inheritence is such a great idea ... but I'm prepared 
to live with the accepted definitions ... so that we can put aside silly
arguments about what OO means and talk about something useful.  The only
other sane alternative is for everyone to agree that OO means absolutely
nothing, and invent a new bunch of words!  Either way, new definitions
of OO are counter-productive.

-- Steve


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com