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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!ekrell
From: ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: Definition of "Object-Oriented"
Message-ID: <3673@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 21:44:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.3673
Posted: Sun Feb  3 21:44:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 03:01:01 EST
References: <4288@ucbvax.ARPA> <3366@ucla-cs.ARPA> <73@gitpyr.UUCP> <3540@ucla-cs.ARPA> <356@harvard.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.lang:1378 net.lang.st80:180

> > I've read several definitions of ... object-orientation...; most of them
> > confuse it with abstract data types....  [ADTs are] nice but that
> > doesn't make [them] object-oriented. Ada and Modula-2 have all these
> > goodies [goodies??] but that doesn't make them object-oriented. I think
> > people who know SMALLTALK would agree with me.
> 
> Perhaps, but what -is- the distinction?
> 

  I'd say that the language shouldn't have second class citizens, i.e. every-
thing is treated as objects. Not only functions and procedures but control
structures too. That leaves Ada (and all other procedure-oriented languages
that claim to be object-oriented) out.
-- 
    Eduardo Krell               UCLA Computer Science Department
    ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa      ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell