Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:475 comp.lang.c++:819
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!gatech!uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!watdragon!gvcormack
From: gvcormack@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Gordon V. Cormack)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Object Orientation and The Truth
Message-ID: <5212@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 88 12:25:43 GMT
References: <2792@pitt.UUCP> <10077@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <209@ritcv.UUCP> <10085@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21

> 
> 	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

I think not.  The whole idea behind object oriented programming is
that objects are entities that have a state, and that state is
altered only by "sending messages" to the object.

Please do not take this as an endorsement of OOP -- regardless of
how you care to define it, I still believe it is largely a case of
"Emperor's new clothes".
-- 
Gordon V. Cormack     CS Dept, University of Waterloo, Canada N2L 3G1
                      gvcormack@waterloo  { .CSNET or .CDN or .EDU }
                      gvcormack@water         { UUCP or BITNET }