What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

[Jonathan Bartlett]

Mike Meyer wrote:
> "Xah Lee" <xah at xahlee.org> writes:
> 
> So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming
> languages as he is of Python and Perl.

I think you're misreading some of what is being said.

> Nested subroutines date back to Algol, which was first specified in
> the 50s.

I think the author was speaking in terms of how high a level of a 
language it is, not necessarily how recent it is.

> Actually, classes and other OO concepts come out of simulation programming,
> not as an outgrowth of nested functions. Most of the features one
> associates with OO languages were present in Simula.

Again, I think the author was pointing out that it is an outgrowth 
logically, not necessarily historically.  There is a basic equivalence 
between a class and a group of functions closed over the same variables. 
  I mention something similar in an IBM DeveloperWorks article here:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-highfunc.html

> Function nesting and classes were viewed as independent features. Some 
> OO languages support nesting, others don't. I think it was Grace Murray
> Hopper commenting on Ada who said that "With classes, nesting is for the
> birds."

Doesn't this quote show the opposite?

> Strictly speaking, this isn't true of *any* language. Even the most
> fanatical of languages distinguish between classes, objects and
> methods.

I think the point was that in Java everything is done within the context 
of a class.  You can define methods, but only as a part of a class.  You 
cannot define a function or even a variable that stands on its own.

> But IIRC, Java comes with a set of low-level types that don't have
> classes associated with them.

But still, it does not allow you, the programmer, to do the same.

Jon
----
Learn to program using Linux assembly language
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017