4 ms·
You and the author appear to be using different definitions. I find it troubling that, after all this time, there is still no definition that doesn't use words
by jeffdavis 14y ago
You and the author appear to be using different definitions. I find it troubling that, after all this time, there is still no definition that doesn't use words like "thing".
- gdwatson 14y agoI like the Rees OO ontology[1]. The set notation doesn't lend itself to easy reading, but it lets you break out the features of an object system in a more precise way. [1] http://mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html http://mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html
- jeffdavis 14y agoI have seen that before and I don't consider it particularly useful. #5 is self-referential and useless. Only one or two (#9 and maybe #7) of those help distinguish OOP style from anything else, and #9 is not very compelling. When I see OO code, I mostly think about the bundling of code with the data it operates on, but that is basically a module. So maybe it should be called module-oriented programming?