Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20:
OO being a subclass of procedural is a tough call. It is certainly more procedural then declarative, but OO describes a different set of ideas than procedural or declarative. (abstraction, inheritance...etc..) It seems possible that there could be an OO logic-based language, so I would say OO is not only procedural.
Also, the openning statement including functions should not be confused with mathematical function seems wrong. They should be confused / thought of as nearly the same. I am sure there is article on here further detailing this: given input a function produces a single output. -has
:[http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~nordland/ohaskell/ O'Haskell] is an example of a ''technically'' non-procedural OO language. The non-proceduralness is buried under a lot of syntactic sugar, but it's there. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
| |||