From: james@...
Date: 2002-04-11T06:36:57+09:00
Subject: RE: OO/Ruby Terminology

>
> In article <PGEPJIFLPEPOHCKEEEIKEEGLDCAA.james@rubyxml.com>,
>  james@rubyxml.com wrote:
>
> > Am I being pedantic, or wrong?
>
> Maybe just a little of both.  ;-)
>
> The problem, as I see it is that every language(that does) tends to
> implement OO in slightly different ways.  Thus I like to break things
> down into just a few basic concepts that apply across the spectrum, and
> deal with implementation quirks when they become an issue.
>
> For instance, if I were using Eiffel to convey introductory OO concepts,
> do I bring Eiffel's powerful inheritance structures into the mix when
> I'm talking about general theory?  No.  Because, for better or worse,
> that power isn't very common.

So, then, the message-passing paradigm is not a general OO concept?
Or, it is, but not one worth emphasizing, because too few languages
actually behave that way?
Or something else?


James


>