Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!barmar
From: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented vs. Abstract Data Types
Message-ID: <4555@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 17-Jan-87 03:40:42 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4555
Posted: Sat Jan 17 03:40:42 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Jan-87 16:09:20 EST
References: <4000001@nucsrl.UUCP> <3288@milano.UUCP> <147@m10ux.UUCP> <1023@cuuxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: barmar@eddie.MIT.EDU (Barry Margolin
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 20

In article <1023@cuuxb.UUCP> mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) writes:
>	The advantage/disadvantage to the O.O. languages is that they force 
>	you to use this Object/Message paradign all of the time.  The ADT
>	programming style is usually a method of using a particular language,
>	which does not enforce its use.

This assumes the language allows ONLY o-o programming, as is the case in
Smalltalk.  In other cases, o-o programming is an option.  For example,
Flavors is an object-oriented facility within a number of Lisp dialects;
Lisp itself isn't o-o, but if you want to do o-o programming within such
dialects you can use Flavors.

Another error you make is the assumption that object-oriented
programming implies message sending.  Common Loops and Symbolics's New
Flavors use generic function calls instead of message sending, but they
are still object oriented.
-- 
    Barry Margolin
    ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
    UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar