Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm
From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: Definition of Buzzwords: "Object-Oriented"
Message-ID: <5424@duke.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 14:15:05 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5424
Posted: Sun Feb 17 14:15:05 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 03:12:34 EST
References: <4288@ucbvax.ARPA> <163@wanginst.UUCP>
Reply-To: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Distribution: net
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.lang:1434 net.lang.st80:200
Summary: 

Fundamentally, Smalltalk doesn't do anything differently from Ada; it
just hides it differently.  

Trying to give a talk on Object-Oriented Programming, I searched high
and low (through all the Smalltalk books, for example) for a definition
of OOP -- and found none.  Either we have to take it as an undefined
term, or we ought to find a definition.  I'm unsatisfied with the
definition that has been offered by several people ("It's what Smalltalk
does that no-one else does") because a) I can't find that (tell me the
fundamental difference between passing messages and passing parameters
by name) and b) it makes "Object-Oriented Programming" == "SmallTalk
Programming" which seems to eliminate any chance of using the term or
the idea usefully in anything BUT SmallTalk.

Personally, I think the term should be discarded as being too fuzzy for
scientific use.  First, let's find out just what an Object is!

-- 
		Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated.

				Charlie Martin
				(...mcnc!duke!crm)

		"I am not a number, I'm a free variable!"