Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ritcv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!jeh
From: jeh@ritcv.UUCP (Jim Heliotis)
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: Definition of Buzzwords: "Object-Oriented"
Message-ID: <1488@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 15:03:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.1488
Posted: Wed Jan 23 15:03:58 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 21:02:05 EST
References: <4288@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.lang:1296 net.lang.st80:160

> Is there a definition of the term "object-oriented" which is both descriptive
> of all current uses of that term and accepted by all who currently use it?
> If not, can such a definition be constructed?
> 
>                                         Bill Laubenheimer

If you would like to test every language for object-orientedness, and answer
'yes' or 'no', then I'd say that is the wrong approach.  I would rather say
things like (1) Pascal is not very object-oriented, (2) Ada is rather o-o,
and (3) Smalltalk-80 is very o-o, because even booleans are defined as ST80
objects.

I realize I am not offering a definition.  I just want to point out that I think
it is a matter of degree.

				Jim Heliotis
				{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jeh
				rocksvax!ritcv!jeh
				ritcv!jeh@Rochester