Content deleted Content added
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
MikeSchinkel (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 116:
:No one mind your contribution. An attempt is more hopeful than giving up. I think four points you pointed out are quite accepted--that's what I have learned and have seen in many books of OOP. My intial motivation to omit them is I wanted to turn the article into more general term rather than common one. The explanation of polymorphism is a good instance. Not every OOP language has a data type. I mean when you teach OOP, it is inevitable to explain about porymophism but it is actually rather an implementation choice and detail. Anyway, this is my reason. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 02:39, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you give me examples of OOP languages that don't have data types? Or are you meaning ones don't differentiate between integer, boolean, etc? My use of data type here, by the way, was specifically to avoid the concept of "class" because a class is a type of data type though not vice-versa, and some languages don't support class in the traditional sense and I didn't want to have to go into the intense detail required to explain. A good definition should be consise, no? :) [[User:MikeSchinkel|MikeSchinkel]] 02:51, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
| |||