Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!vsi1!ubvax!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: Date: 21 Mar 91 21:06:32 GMT References: <1991Mar7.163106.29477@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> <1991Mar10.151220.2581@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <11966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Mar20.201633.15564@ucunix.san.uc.edu> Sender: news@Rational.COM Distribution: usa Lines: 18 Accurate terminology is important. Focussing on objects blurs the distinctions between "pure" OO languages and languages like Ada, because by the standard definition of an object, any language that supports a Boolean variable is object-oriented (and object, after all, is just something that has state and suffers actions that affect that state--a Boolean variable certainly satisfies this simple set of criteria). A much more accurate distinction is that between INHERITANCE-oriented languages and non-inheritance oriented languages. An inheritance-oriented language supports the notion of classes, instances of classes, subclasses, inheritance of operations, local overriding of inherited operations, etc. THAT is the fundamental distinction that should be emphasized, and that is why I'd like to retire the term object-oriented as largely irrelevant and/or misleading. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."