Content deleted Content added
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 42:
:I was thinking and I agree that it's possible to discuss object-oriented programming in general, if not easy. There is a term that is quite popular and it should be strange if wikipedia doesn't cover that term mainly not as part of some article. But still I also think we should cover use of object in general, which can be part of OOP but can be outside. Besides, I realized it's possible to merge the article latter if needed. So I will write an article [[object theory]] I proposed. We will see and we can discuss again we should combine them or rename or anything else. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 21:45 25 May 2003 (UTC)
----
I disagree that "abstraction" is a standard definition of OOP nor does OOP have a monopoly on abstraction. For example, functions provide black boxing of implementation, and relational algebra is sometimes regarded as being highly abstract. The main text makes it appear that "abstraction" belongs with the "classic three". It does not.
-----
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm - OOP Criticism
| |||