On 12/20/2011 06:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 17:58:30 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/20/2011 05:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 15:49:34 Timon Gehr wrote:
2. Dynamic binding is a core concept of OOP. A language that does not
support dynamic binding does not support OOP. A program that does not
use dynamic binding is not object oriented. What is to disagree with?
I don't agree with that either. You don't need polymorphism for OOP.
It's
quite restricted without it, but you can still program with objects even
if you're restricted to something like D's structs, so you're still
doing OOP.
- Jonathan M Davis
No. That is glorified procedural style. 'Objects' as in 'OOP' carry data
and _behavior_, structs don't (except if you give them some function
pointers, but that is just implementing poor man's polymorphism.)
Having some kind of dynamic execution model is a requirement for OOP.
There are no two ways about it.
Well, I completely disagree. The core of OOP is encapsulating the data within
an object
Yes, encapsulation is another core concept of OOP.
and having functions associated with the object itself which operate
on that data.
Correct. The functions have to be associated with _the object itself_.
Case closed.
It's about encapsulation and tying the functions to the type.
Static typing is not an OOP concept.
Polymorphism is a nice bonus, but it's not required.
It is not a bonus. It is part of what OOP is about.
I'd say that any language which is really trying to do OOP should definitely
have polymorphism or it's going to have pretty sucky OOP, but it can still
have OOP.
In case you define OOP differently from all relevant textbooks, based
only on the encapsulation aspect, yes.
