Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha)

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>For that reason, I tended to think of imperative as exclusive
>from object-oriented.


One way to categorize programming languages is "imperative" ("do this!
do that!") vs. "declarative" ("x is the list of primes.").


"Object-oriented" is a property (or a collection of properties) of
some programming languages; the original object-oriented languages are
all imperative. Some concepts have been transferred from
object-oriented imperative languages to functional languages, but
whether these languages are considered object-oriented probably
depends on who you ask.


In any case, "imperative" and "object-oriented" are everything but
exclusive.


>Not that you can't, or shouldn't, write
>imperative programs in OO languages, but that it wouldn't be
>used as a term in the description. (Or, why is it that vol. 2
>isn't called "Non-Object Oriented Languages"?)


You would have to ask the editor. "Non-Object Oriented Languages"
would describe everything in Volume 2-4. My guess is that he did not
call Volume 2 "Non-Object Oriented Imperative Languages" because that
would be very long-winded, and since there is a separate volume on
object-oriented languages, it is clear that Volume 2 does not cover
that.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.