Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:14:39 GMT Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien Lines: 34 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-09-010@comp.compilers> References: <14-09-005@comp.compilers> <14-09-007@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1410372571 79502 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (10 Sep 2014 18:09:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: books, OOP Posted-Date: 10 Sep 2014 14:09:31 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1376 glen herrmannsfeldt writes: >For that reason, I tended to think of imperative as exclusive >from object-oriented. One way to categorize programming languages is "imperative" ("do this! do that!") vs. "declarative" ("x is the list of primes."). "Object-oriented" is a property (or a collection of properties) of some programming languages; the original object-oriented languages are all imperative. Some concepts have been transferred from object-oriented imperative languages to functional languages, but whether these languages are considered object-oriented probably depends on who you ask. In any case, "imperative" and "object-oriented" are everything but exclusive. >Not that you can't, or shouldn't, write >imperative programs in OO languages, but that it wouldn't be >used as a term in the description. (Or, why is it that vol. 2 >isn't called "Non-Object Oriented Languages"?) You would have to ask the editor. "Non-Object Oriented Languages" would describe everything in Volume 2-4. My guess is that he did not call Volume 2 "Non-Object Oriented Imperative Languages" because that would be very long-winded, and since there is a separate volume on object-oriented languages, it is clear that Volume 2 does not cover that. - anton -- M. Anton Ertl anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/