Content deleted Content added
m moved Talk:Oberon (programming language) to Talk:Oberon-1: This article completely mixes up Oberon with Oberon-2. The original Oberon didn't have methods or runtime type information, so it wasn't even minimally object-oriented. There's really no |
Oops, someone included {{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll}} and people started talking there, moving it here |
||
Line 107:
[[Oberon programming language]] → [[Oberon (programming language)]]
– Conformance with WP naming conventions [[User:Atanamir|atanamir]]
==claim that Oberon is not object oriented ==
A recent edit by Taw included an edit summary noting the article said oberon was not object oriented. As this can be achieved in various ways, including that used by Wirth et al in the design of Oberon, I suggest that this edit is confused as to the underlying facts. And in any case, the article also says plainly the O is object oriented, just not in the C++, Java, or Smalltalk fashion. Comments? [[User:Ww|ww]] 05:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:I would say that while Oberon supports the practice of OOP, it also supports Imperative programming. It's a component-orientated language, which gives a lot more expressive freedom to the programmer. If I may go all poetical for a moment, the Copernican revolution in programming was the sudden awareness that algorithms should revolve around data and not data around algorithms - an allusion to the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun. But as modern thinkers we should be aware that in fact the sun and the earth revolve around their common centre of gravity, which turns out to be outside the surface of the sun. Likewise, you can't write a decent large software system without understanding BOTH the data and the algorithms. This is an archetypical Niklaus Wirth view - refer to his ancient book "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs" (Wirth, 1975, ISBN 0-13-022418-9). Let us be glad that Oberon is not ONLY an OOP. [[User:OrangUtanUK|OrangUtanUK]] 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::Oberon-1 wasn't even the slightiest bit object-oriented. In Oberon-2 there's no message passing, not everything is an object (in particular classes are not objects), polymorphism is limited to class hierarchies, and there's no object-based encapsulation. What it really supports is [[abstract data types]] and [[component-oriented]] programming (it is pretty much irrelevant whether it's "better" than oop, it's just not oop). It supports a little OOP, but to call it is too much to call it an "object-oriented programming language". [[User:Taw|Taw]] 17:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
==Merged Oberon-2 article in==
| |||