home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Questions on Object-Oriented Programming?
- Date: 2 Apr 1996 17:39:04 -0800
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4jskroINNnf2@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <Pine.A32.3.91.960330150837.27998E-100000@black.weeg.uiowa.edu> <4jromcINN988@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <Pine.A32.3.91.960402124023.16851L-100000@red.weeg.uiowa.edu> <4js0ca$4hq@news1.mnsinc.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <4js0ca$4hq@news1.mnsinc.com>,
- Szu-Wen Huang <huang@mnsinc.com> wrote:
- >C, like assembly or BASIC, cannot be considered object-oriented languages
- >because they do not support most common object-oriented features. The
- >name exists in order to classify the likes of Smalltalk and C++ apart
- >from structured programming languages like C and Pascal. The definition
- >cannot be "any language that can be used to write object-oriented code"
- >because that would be a useless definition.
-
- Precisely. You have hit upon it: it is a useless definition. It's a
- resume-stuffing buzzword. One year Joe Manager reads some industry rag and
- decides that all programming should be OO. So to get hired, you put OO into
- your resume, and carry on as you did before. Simple as that.
-
- --
-
-