Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!ekrell
From: ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: Definition of Buzzwords: "Object-Oriented"
Message-ID: <3366@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 22:28:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.3366
Posted: Wed Jan 23 22:28:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:38:26 EST
References: <4288@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.lang:1303 net.lang.st80:162
Summary: 

In article <4288@ucbvax.ARPA> wildbill@ucbvax.ARPA (William J. Laubenheimer) writes:
>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?
>
>I would be interested in hearing from anybody who has any ideas relating
>to this topic.

  I read this somewhere: a procedure-oriented language represents the
behavior of a program by describing the effect of applying procedures
to different kinds of arguments (here procedures being a broad term
including assignments, arithmetic operators, etc).
  An object-oriented language does it by describing the effect of applying
different procedures (methods) to a specific object.

  I like this (informal) definition because it captures the radical difference
between procedure and object-oriented languages.
-- 
    Eduardo Krell               UCLA Computer Science Department
    ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa      ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell