CompuServe Thread

>Replay: using OO techniques is a matter of style and not of a language. I agree. On the same hand, I think the language cannot escape the issue at some point in the process. Surely the language should be completely secondarly, but surely it cannot be considered insignificant either. >Add: To me, a language is a medium to transport my ideas to others, Agreed. >or for instance instructions to a computer. Agreed. >If a language does this well, i'll use it, otherwise not. When I have the liberty, I prefer to do so as well. >Independent of a OO label. Same here. For instance, I still continue, probably even > 50% in non-OOP languages (C, UNIX shell, etc). >So: OOp is possible in any language; Yes. >even in binary or assembler, Yes. But I wouldn't prefer that all the time. What allows more direct modelling seems more convenient and natural as a prefence. >like Bart does. ALthough he was using assembler, it was my understanding that he was not using OO. >I'm not one of those who like to learn many different languages and dialects. There is always a line in the sand, but I usually recommend that programmers know a few (it sounds like you do). >You really want a comparison of AmigaOS with MS-Windows??? At least a brief one, in specific to object concepts. >If you go to XWindows, you'll find again a lot of classes and methods. With respect to?