Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:478 comp.lang.c++:830
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!db
From: db@its63b.ed.ac.uk (D Berry)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Object Orientation and The Truth
Message-ID: <1006@its63b.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Feb 88 13:07:57 GMT
References: <2792@pitt.UUCP> <10077@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <209@ritcv.UUCP> <10085@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Reply-To: db@itspna (Dave Berry)
Organization: University of Edinburgh
Lines: 23

In article <10085@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> jss@hector (Jerry Schwarz) writes:
>In article <209@ritcv.UUCP> mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Michael Lutz) writes:
>>For the record: Peter Wegner presented a paper at OOPSLA 87 which gave
>>a taxonomy of various forms of "objectness".  Worth a read, as it
>>does try to provide consistent terminology.  
>
>Thanks for the pointer.  He certainly supports my observation.  I
>quote
>        An object-based language is object-oriented if its objects
>        belong to classes and class hierarchies may be incrementally
>        defined by an inheritance mechanism. That is:
>
>	object-oriented = objects + classes + inheritance
>
>I think he's wrong in one respect.  If there were an applicative
>language that supported inheritance, I would bet that
>"object-oriented" enthusiasts would call it one of theirs.  
>
>Jerry Schwarz

Sorry, I don't understand this.  Why isn't it possible to have an
object-oriented applicative language using this definition of
object-oriented?  Or are you referring to another part of the article?