home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!eff!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!howard
- From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
- Subject: Re: True OOP languages
- Message-ID: <1992Nov12.002943.27750@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <1992Nov11.171645.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:29:43 GMT
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <1992Nov11.171645.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> mebhl@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (TUNRA Bulk Solids) writes:
- >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?
- >
- >Thanks, Simon.
-
- It is true that they don't provide operator overloading. However,
- they do provide both encapsulation and inheritance, which are far more
- important measures of object oriented design philosophy than operator
- overloading.
-
- -Howard
-
- --
- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
- Howard Berkey howard@netcom.com
- Its in my brain now
- _________/\______/\_____/\___/\__/\_/\/\/\/\................................
-
-