lies about OOP

[Roy Smith]

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.

I think the real reason Python is a better teaching language for
teaching OO concepts is because it just gives you the real core of OO:
inheritence, encapsulation, and association of functions with the data
they act on.

C++ has so much stuff layed on top of that (type bondage, access
control, function polymorphism, templates) that it's hard to see the
forest for the trees.  You get C++ jocks who are convinced that that
stuff is part and parcel of OO, and if it doesn't have (for example),
private data, it can't be OO.