Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:18 AM Hope Rouselle <hrouselle@jevedi.xotimo> wrote: >> >> Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> [...] >> >> >> not disagreeing... and yeah I could have thought deeper about the >> >> answer, but I still think "notthing has been OOP" -> "yes it has, they >> >> just didn't realize it" was worth mentioning >> > >> > Oh yes, absolutely agree. >> >> At the same time, inside the machine nothing is OOP --- so all the OOP >> is no OOP at all and they just didn't realize it? This seems to show >> that OOP is about perspective. An essential thing for OOP is the >> keeping of states. Closures can keep state, so having procedures as >> first-class values allows us to say we are doing OOP too. (Arguments of >> procedures are messages and function application is message passing, >> with closures keeping a state --- and all the rest of OOP can be >> implemented with enough such functional technology.) In summary, OOP >> should not be defined as some special syntax, otherwise there is no OOP >> in ``2 + 2''. >> >> Having said that, I totally agree with all the nitpicking. > > Object orientation is a particular abstraction concept. It's not a > feature of the machine, it's a feature of the language that you write > your source code in. I've done OOP using IDL and CORBA, writing my > code in C and able to subclass someone else's code that might have > been written in some other language. [1] Central tenets of OOP > (polymorphism, inheritance, etc) can be implemented at a lower level > using whatever makes sense, but *at the level that you're writing*, > they exist, and are useful. > > Data types, variables, control flow, these are all abstractions. But > they're such useful abstractions that we prefer to think that way in > our code. So, *to us*, those are features of our code. To the > computer, of course, they're just text that gets processed into > actually-executable code, but that's not a problem.
Total agreement. > So I would say that (in Python) there IS object orientation in "2 + > 2", and even in the Python C API, there is object orientation, despite > C not normally being considered an object-oriented language. But would you say that 2 + 2 is also an illustration of object orientation in any other language too? Regarding C, I have many times said that myself. If I wrote assembly, I'm sure I would do my best to create things like procedures --- a label and some bureaucracy to get arguments in and a return value out. > ChrisA > > [1] And boy oh boy was that good fun. The OS/2 Presentation Manager > had a wealth of power available. Good times, sad that's history now. I know OS/2 only by name. I never had the pleasure of using it. In fact, I don't even know how it looks. I must be a little younger than you are. But not too younger because I kinda remember its name. Was it a system that might have thought of competing against Microsoft Windows? :-) That's what my memory tells me about it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
