English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-07-27 (14:32)
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
> 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