lies about OOP

[Adam DePrince]

On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:27, Roy Smith wrote:
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> > I did not really 'get' OOP until after learning Python.  The
> > relatively simple but powerful user class model made more sense to
> > me than C++.  So introducing someone to Python, where OOP is a
> > choice, not a mandate, is how *I* would introduce a procedural
> > programmer to the subject.  YMMV.
> 
> OOP is a choice in C++ too.  You can write procedural C++ code; no
> need to use classes at all if you don't want to.  Something like Java
> is a different story.  Java *forces* you to use classes.  Nothing
> exists in Java that's not part of some class.
> 

Static methods act like C functions.  Sure, they are members of classes,
but in name only.  Besides, just as you can use a procedural language in
an OO fashion with enough programmer discipline, you can write in a
procedural style with an OOP language with sufficient rebellion.  Just
use one class, put everything in it and create one instance on startup.

Now that I think about it, Java is an exception to this.  There are per
class code and variable limits in the JVM, limiting the size of your
procedural program masquerading as a class.  Perhaps that is a good
thing.

Adam DePrince