3 ms·
That wasn't my intention at all. I'm sorry if that's how it came across. It's just that I got tired of seeing people refer to code as procedural because it uses
by ircmaxell 14y ago
That wasn't my intention at all. I'm sorry if that's how it came across. It's just that I got tired of seeing people refer to code as procedural because it uses functions, and refer to code as OOP because it uses classes. I was just trying to point out that the approach is different from the tools that you use to implement the approach...
- shasta 14y agoI think it's true that you can encode OOP objects in any number of languages, but OOP really is about the objects. If your encoding isn't little bundles of methods, it's not OOP, even if it uses the other general techniques you've listed: abstraction, modularity, etc.