Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications
-
Don Syme
-
Jon Harrop
- Robert Roessler
-
David Thomas
- Ville-Pertti Keinonen
- james woodyatt
-
Jon Harrop
[
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: | Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications |
David Thomas wrote: > language features provided to make it easier. Any > time you write a program that focuses on the > components as "data and operations on that data," you > have written an OO program. This can be done in any 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.