Revision as of 12:18, 2 October 2003 edit Doradus (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 6,033 edits mNo edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:29, 3 October 2003 edit undo Doradus (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 6,033 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 59: ---- Discussion of classes doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Plenty of OO languages have objects but no classes (eg. [[self programming language\|self]], [[cecil programming language\|cecil]]). -- [[User:P3d0\|P3d0]] ---- Taku, my friend, I appreciate your intent, but I think your latest changes to this page have only made it worse. I'm fighting the urge to back them out, and instead I'll think about it for a while and see if I can combine the best of the old and new versions... Most of all, I don't claim to be an expert, but I have been in the field of OO programming for some time now; I have read on the topic fairly extensively; I have participated in (and even moderated for a time) the comp.object newsgroup; and I have never heard the term "Object Theory" used by actual practitioners of the OO programming paradigm. An encyclopedia is the place to document terminology, not to invent it, so I think all references to "Object Theory" ought to be deleted unless you can provide a reference to some external definition of the term. -- [[User:P3d0\|P3d0]] 01:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Object-oriented programming: Difference between revisions