|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 10/24/93 11:51
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WJSdnXcda45lUTzZnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:HNadnet0zsaECjzZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>And OO *REQUIRES* message passing. Non-OO languages do not.
>>>
>>>You really ARE dense, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> Not as dense as you. The principles of OO are features that do not exist
>> in other languages. Having something which is required instead of
>> optional DOES NOT MAKE IT A FEATURE. Non-OO languages have had messaging
>> for decades, so messaging is not a fundamental feature of OO.
>>
>> Encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism do not exist in non-OO
>> languages, so THEY are fundamental principles. Messaging is not. The fact
>> that OO requires messaging while others do not is totally insignificant.
>>
>
> Not at all. Quite frankly, I really don't care what YOU think. What I'm
> worried about are the asinine opinions you foster off onto unsuspecting
> beginners.
>
> I agree you are an expert - ex meaning "has been" and spert being a "drip
> under pressure". Describes you exactly.
>
> Once you get some REAL WORLD experience under your belt - and I'm not
> talking a few web pages - I'm talking about projects with dozens of
> programmers and hundreds of K LOC, we can talk again. Until then I'll
> just consider you to be the uneducated idiot you are.
The size of project does not determine what is OO and what is not.
That still does not disguise the fact that what you are calling a
fundamental principle of OO is not unique to OO at all, but something which
has been a part of every other language for decades. The fact that it is
required instead of optional is a trivial point which most intelligent
people would not even consider.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|