Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:27855 comp.lang.c++:7199 comp.lang.misc:4875
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!haven!adm!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: what is c++, c, ansi c etc...
Message-ID: <3916:Apr1317:06:2390@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 90 17:06:23 GMT
References: <DAVIS.90Apr6151002@muscle.pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> <6000:Apr720:31:1490@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <28742@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 20

In article <28742@cup.portal.com> Chewbacca@cup.portal.com (Paul Frederick Snively) writes:
> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes:
> > > Also what is object oriented programming?
> > The latest name that young urban computer science types have applied to the
    [ obtw, credit to Rod Schmidt for noting the abbreviation ``Yuckies'' ]
> > old idea of adding another level of indirection to function calls.
> At best this definition is grossly naive and misinformed; at worst it is just
> plain wrong.

I stand by my definition. For fun I implemented so-called ``strictly
type-checked fully polymorphable objects with multiple inheritance'' in
C macros a few months ago. From the point of view of the macros, objects
were either another level of indirection to both function calls and
structure element accesses, or another level of indirection to just
function calls, depending whether they were compiled for space or for
speed.

Followups to comp.lang.misc once again.

---Dan