Subj : Re: Change Patterns (was: Polymorphism sucks) To : comp.programming,comp.object From : CBFalconer Date : Fri Aug 12 2005 11:21 pm Chris Sonnack wrote: > Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t writes: > .... snip ... > > That is how *those* languages are implemented, yes. *Conceptually*, > which is the whole point of OOP, code and data are bound, and there > are languages that don't work that way. JavaScript doesn't really > even HAVE classes, yet you can create objects. > >> So is OK if I re-interpret what you wrote to mean the correct thing >> instead of the way you worded it? My, how delicately put > > No, because you misunderstood my point. OOP really has nothing to do with languages. Some languages facilitate and/or enforce the OOP view. Others simply allow it. C or Pascal can create highly OOP oriented code. C++ facilitates this, at a cost. Java enforces, again at a cost. It is all in the mindset of the programmer. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! .