Revision as of 17:58, 29 March 2004 edit Esap (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 535 edits mNo edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:18, 2 April 2004 edit undo Esap (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 535 edits mNo edit summary Next edit →
Line 141: If we must talk about OOP modelling the "real world" then can we please do it less prominently? OOP applies quite well in situations where there is no "real world" (eg. nodes in a control-flow graph) so I don't consider real-world fidelity to be very important at all. However, some disagree, so if someone feels like putting that back in, I won't remove it again. --[[User:P3d0\|P3d0]] 13:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- I think the description on abstraction is misleading. How would that abstraction be different from composition? Composition is a way of grouping multiple ~~entitites~~entities into a single entity. Abstraction should be thought more as ignoring irrelevant details. -- [[User:Esap\|esap]]

Talk:Object-oriented programming: Difference between revisions