FM>     "C++ extends the C Language by adding object-oriented
PP>programming
 FM> language features.  OOP purists, however, do not regard C++ as a
PP>true
 FM> object-oriented programming language.  This view is shared by the
 FM> designers of C++.  Nevertheless, C++ has enough OOP extensions to
PP>meke
 FM> it quite useful in modeling objects...."
 FM>     He stops short of saying that Turbo Pascal is a TRUE
 FM> object-oriented programming language but I gather that is implied.
PP>While it is true that C++ is *way* off from being a true object-oriented
PP>programming language, the Borland/Turbo Pascal (with objects) isn't much
PP>closer to object paradise... The Pascal described in the Extended Pascal
PP>ISO standard and the upcoming standard Object Pascal are *much* better
PP>in this regard than Borland Pascal, though not quite there yet either. I
PP>mostly regard Object Pascal (the to-be-a-standard one, not the Borland
PP>crap) to be a good language without a good compiler.
PP>For more information, check out http://www.gulliver.qc.ca/~pp/crit.txt .
PP>A very objective (no pun intended) text. Note that much of whats in it
PP>applies to Object Pascal (again, not the broken Borland one). If it
PP>would have to be a C derived language, Objective-C would have been a
PP>much better choice for true objects.
I fail to see the big hype about OOP & OOD.
Please explain where it can be used and how this will make it better.
I am thouroughly familiar with OOP & OOD so there's no need for a definition.
PP>Pierre
... If you can't make it good, make it LOOK good. -Bill Gates.
--- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b
---------------