What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

[Greg Ewing]

Anno Siegel wrote:
> These languages had an axe to grind.  They were designed (by Niklas
> Wirth) at a time of a raging discussion whether structured programming
> (goto-less programming, mostly) is practical.  Their goal was to prove
> that it is, and in doing so the restrictive aspects of the language
> were probably a bit overdone.

This doesn't sound right. That argument might still have
been active at the inception of Pascal, I'm not sure. But
Pascal *does* have a goto statement, although you were
punished a little for using it (numeric labels only, which
had to be declared before use). And surely no-one was arguing
against structured programming by the time Modula came along,
much less Oberon.

The restrictiveness of these languages was mainly in the
type system, which is quite a different issue. And, as has
been pointed out, relaxing the type system of Pascal just
a little has resulted in a very successful family of
languages (UCSD, Turbo, Apple Pascal, etc.)

-- 
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
University of Canterbury,	
Christchurch, New Zealand
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg