home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!NewsWatcher!user
- From: werner@soe.berkeley.edu (John Werner)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
- Subject: Re: True OOP languages
- Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.programmer
- Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:18:28 GMT
- Organization: UC Berkeley School of Education
- Lines: 15
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <werner-111192121734@128.32.157.31>
- References: <1992Nov11.171645.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.32.157.31
-
- In article <1992Nov11.171645.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>,
- mebhl@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (TUNRA Bulk Solids) wrote:
-
- > I've read, on the net, that THINK C and THINK Pascal are not true OOP
- > languages because they don't provide operator overloading. Is this true?
-
- It depends on your religious views about what constitutes "true OOP."
- Since they have classes, inheritance, and polymorphism/run-time binding, I
- would say that THINK C and Pascal qualify. THINK C isn't "true C++",
- though, because it lacks operator overloading and a number of other
- features.
-
- --
- John Werner werner@soe.berkeley.edu
- UC Berkeley School of Education 510-642-9651
-