Revision as of 14:24, 11 December 2004 edit Wlievens (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,559 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:33, 13 December 2004 edit undo Doradus (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 6,033 edits Yeah, the claim of "pure OO" is meaningless Next edit →
Line 23: In the section where it is claimed that Eiffel is pure OO, it introduces control structures that are not in any way object oriented. I'm not a purist or formalist, but if you claim a language to be pure OO, "special form" control structures like loops and ifs should be replaced by message sends (like in Smalltalk). This page really is a sales ad! :Yeah, the claim of "pure OO" is meaningless, as everyone has different ideas of what constitutes purity. Probably the fact all Eiffel types are classes (even INTEGER and NONE) contributed to this claim, but as you say, there are different dimensions of purity. --[[User:P3d0\|P3d0]] 18:33, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Eiffel (programming language): Difference between revisions