Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!njin!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: NEON/Object Oriented Forth/OOF Message-ID: <1788.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 22 Sep 90 04:44:39 GMT References: Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips. (in Pgh, PA) Lines: 26 In , garym@cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net (Gary Murphy) writes: > As one who uses OOP everyday, I do think the list cited above does lack two > OOP features, one which is essential and the second which is very powerful > and at the same time extremely dangerous. The first is encapsulation, AKA > information hiding, which imposes strict scoping on variables and selected > functions and allows a complete change of the implementation without affecting > the remainder of the application (provided the interface is unchanged). The > second is multiple inheritance, the bane of all OOPL designers, but a very > powerful idiom when used correctly. I agree with you on encapsulation. I have yet to be convinced that any knows how to use Multiple Inheretance effectively, or even what it "really means." As there are at least three different styles/types of multiple inheretance(MI) it doesn't seem as if a consensus is near. I don't object on the grounds that MI is too powerful or too dangerous, but that it is an ill-defined or perhaps even ill-definable concept (that is, even more ill-defined that OOP itself). On the other hand I have yet to make a dent in the OOF/OOP bibliography Mitch posted. -Doug fFuOtRuTrHe (FORTH in the future) --- Preferred: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us Ok: {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp