Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: OOP & LSP (oops, Think Pascal)
Message-ID: <1889@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 22 May 89 01:19:31 GMT
References: <1384@ndmath.UUCP> <1927@internal.Apple.COM> <18612@cup.portal.com> <1887@husc6.harvard.edu> <1079@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 33

In article <1079@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> cash@csmil.umich.edu (Howard Cash) writes:
>object oriented languages.  A respected engineer at the company that 
>MAKES my favorite C compiler says that Object Pascal improves the 
>maintainability of his software.
>
>Question:  Am I making a mistake by doing my development in LSC?

	I didn't mean to scare anyone into using Object Pascal....

	1) Object orientation can be achieved without using an object-
	oriented language.  It's just easier with Object Pascal (or C++,
	or whatever).

	2) Symantec sneak-previewed a versoin of THINK C with object-
	oriented extensions. We *will* come out with object support
	in THINK C, so worry not.

The answer to your question is "no". :-) Several major software
vendors can't be all wrong....

		--Rich


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Rich Siegel
 Staff Software Developer
 Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
 UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

 "She told me to make myself comfortable, so I pulled down my pants
 and sat in the pudding." -Emo Phillips
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~