Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Feb 2006 15:18:33 -0800
Daniel T. wrote:
In article <1140967633.852747.88410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Vysakh P Pillai" <vysakhpillai@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is my 1st year B-tech Seminar topic.Can anyone plaese give me
someone please give me some points for this????
Nobody ever agrees on what OO is. Asking will start a big fight.
Further, a definition that uses itself as part of the definition
probably has problems. Saying that an "object is an object that...." is
a recursive definition. One must first define "object" first in order
to base definitions off of it.
I'm redirecting this from comp.lang.c++. Anybody want to help out?
-T-
oop.ismad.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- From: Daniel Parker
- Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- References:
- Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- From: Daniel T.
- Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- Prev by Date: Re: With Agile methods, we are measuring the right things
- Next by Date: Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- Previous by thread: Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- Next by thread: Re: OOP can be simply summed up as 'passing messages to objects'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|