Content deleted Content added
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
MikeSchinkel (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 125:
:I think so, [[JavaScript]], [[Visual Basic]] and such. I know we usually classify them as non-OOP. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 04:39, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
Ahh! I read your reply and thought "Of course! What was I thinking?" Then I went back and read the entry on [[Object-oriented_programming]] and remembered what I was thinking. The confusion I had was the distinction between "class-based" and "object-based" languages. I had never heard it explained that way so I was confused. Now I find it not only confusing but also pretty much inaccurate. The entry describes "Class-based" as "In this model, objects are entities that combine both state (i.e., data) and behavior (i.e., procedures, or methods)." That applies to "object-based" as well. I would say the inclusion of the term "class-based" should be removed, and then a reference to "object-based" be left in that describes it as "object-oriented minus inheritance."
There is another spin that could be added to this; that of OOP languages with staticly defined classes (i.e. most of them) and then ones with dynamically defined classes (i.e. javascript and a few others I'm sure.) However, I don't have enough experience with javascript to elaborate correctly.
Thoughts? [[User:MikeSchinkel|MikeSchinkel]] 10:54, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
----
| |||