Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!gwyn@BRL.ARPA
From: gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Is C++ Object Oriented?
Message-ID: <1498@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 11-Jan-86 16:54:49 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1498
Posted: Sat Jan 11 16:54:49 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 01:03:38 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 4

Jim Kempf has a good point.  "Object-oriented" probably
should be reserved for languages that really are.  Since
"object-oriented" and "good" are not synonymous, this
shouldn't bother anybody.