Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!brunix!twl
From: twl@brunix (Ted "Theodore" (W) Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: object-oriented this, that, and the other thing
Message-ID: <21986@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 1 Dec 89 17:05:54 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> <10013@june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: twl@boojum.UUCP (Ted "Theodore" (W) Leung)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 22

In article <10013@june.cs.washington.edu> ewan@june.cs.washington.edu (Ewan Tempero) writes:
>	(a) Ways to create objects
>	(b) Ways to manage objects
>	(c) no non-object constucts [ill-defined I know, maybe I'll 
>					say something later]

So what makes a language that supports these features any different
from a language that is based purely on abstract data types?  In the
absence of code-sharing/grouping mechanisms, what distinguishes an
object from an ADT?  This opens up the age old question of "what is an
object", which will probably cause this group to go into conniptions.
I don't think that labelling all the features with the right
object-oriented whatever is what's needed.  I think that we need to
get good definitions of what the essential language elements are and
try to understand their interactions in the language design space.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu 	| Ted "Theodore" Leung
BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET		| Box 1910, Brown University
UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl			| Providence, RI 02912


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com