Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications
- David Thomas
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | David Thomas <david_hd@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications |
ADT's have traditionally been written in OO style. The thing that makes "OO programming" different from traditional programming is that the same methodology is extended to every component of the program. While yes, a stack with "push" and "pop" methods is an ADT, surely a text widget is not, even if coded in very much the same style. --- Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@exomi.com> wrote: > David Thomas wrote: > > > Any time you write a program that focuses on the > > components as "data and operations on that data," > > you have written an OO program. > > Not according to traditional terminology. What > you've done is used Abstract Data Types, which is one > of the most basic forms of abstraction that anyone > should learn in any programming language. > > Of course I've seen quite a few programmers who > don't have enough discipline to use consistent > abstractions unless they're forced to encapsulate > things in classes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com