Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and other OOP Langs
Keywords: C++, OOPS
Message-ID: <1007@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 17 Apr 89 03:37:43 GMT
References: <615@marob.MASA.COM>
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 17

In article <2602@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes:
>like to see comparisons of C++ vs. other object oriented languages such as:
>C++ vs. Modula2
>C++ vs. Lisp
>C++ vs. SmallTalk
>C++ vs. Prolog
>C++ vs. Objective C

It is stretching things to call Modula 2 an object-oriented language.
(It is difficult to tell Modula 2 and Pascal apart with the naked eye.)
It is downright false to call Prolog an object-oriented language.
(Even in logic program languges with stream parallelism, object identity
is not supported.)

The main difference between C++ and SmallTalk, as far as I can see, is
that comp.lang.smalltalk isn't full of postings "have I misunderstood
or is this a compiler bug".