Content deleted Content added
Agree with mintguy |
No edit summary |
||
Line 34:
::# There are aspects of programming (e.g inheritance) that some people call OOP and some people do not. i.e. there are different POVs about what OOP is.
::# There are uses of objects in programming (e.g. the objects in Ada) that no-one calls OOP.
:::Quick note: I presume you mean the old Ada83, which didn't have inheritance. The usual term for that was "object-based" programming, and it generally was NOT accepted as object-oriented programming. However, the current version of Ada (since 1995) has inheritance, and complete support for OOP.
::My view is that the best solution is that issue 1) can be discussed quite happily in this article. 2) requires a separate article e.g [[object (programming)]] or maybe [[object theory]] (not sure how widespread this term is and so am hesistant to agree to use it all), which links to this one, and devolves significant chunks of work to this article. That article could have more historical information than this article. Naturally this article would also link back to that one ... 'Programming languages may support objects but are rarely described as object-''oriented'' languages. See [[object_(programming)]] for a more general article'. What do you think? [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21]] 17:16 23 May 2003 (UTC)
| |||