🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <147@m10ux.UUCP> mnc@m10ux.UUCP writes:
>(1) What is the difference (other than a rather contrived, anthropomorphic
>    view of the relationship between functions and values), between O-O
>    programming and the ten (?) year old theory and practice called "abstract
>    data types"? 

There are many similarities of course. But in my view the difference comes
more from the analysis. Abstract Date Types reasoning is based on analysis
of the result you want to achieve, and building a system from this analysis,
through careful specification and so on. O-O analysis is to design and
implement a set of objects which provide several duties, that the user or
other objects can use at their convenience (this became really clear for me
after reading a publication by Bertrand Meyer). This being said, you can use
o-o analysis and program with abstract data types, or use an o-o language
with a classical analysis, but you may loose a lot by doing this...

>(2) Why is it so hard for O-O programming advocates to explain the advantages
>    of their programming methodology without slipping into obscure,
> specialized O-O jargon, 

Well that's a real problem. I also have suffered of the many different
terminlogies used by people building O-O environments.
-- 
--- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
UUCP:    ...!mcvax!inria!crin!tombre     EUROKOM: Karl Tombre CRIN
POST:    Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France