Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #4587Re: Object-Oriented vs. Abstract Data Types
From: barmar
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1987 08:40
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1987 08:40
20 lines
1587 bytes
1587 bytes
In article <1023@cuuxb.UUCP> mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) writes:
> The advantage/disadvantage to the O.O. languages is that they force
> you to use this Object/Message paradign all of the time. The ADT
> programming style is usually a method of using a particular language,
> which does not enforce its use.
This assumes the language allows ONLY o-o programming, as is the case in
Smalltalk. In other cases, o-o programming is an option. For example,
Flavors is an object-oriented facility within a number of Lisp dialects;
Lisp itself isn't o-o, but if you want to do o-o programming within such
dialects you can use Flavors.
Another error you make is the assumption that object-oriented
programming implies message sending. Common Loops and Symbolics's New
Flavors use generic function calls instead of message sending, but they
are still object oriented.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4555@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!barmarReferences:
<4000001@nucsrl.UUCP> <3288@milano.UUCP> <147@m10ux.UUCP> <1023@cuuxb.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!barmar From: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Object-Oriented vs. Abstract Data Types Message-ID: <4555@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Date: Sat, 17-Jan-87 03:40:42 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4555 Posted: Sat Jan 17 03:40:42 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Jan-87 16:09:20 EST References: <4000001@nucsrl.UUCP> <3288@milano.UUCP> <147@m10ux.UUCP> <1023@cuuxb.UUCP> Reply-To: barmar@eddie.MIT.EDU (Barry Margolin Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Lines: 20