|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcelerier
3233 days ago
|
|
|
> yes, you can do OOP in C, but OOP implies far more than just {X} maybe it was not clear, the point I am trying to get across is that "OOP implies far more than just {X} " is incorrect; OOP doesn't imply any of inheritance, dynamic dispatch, run-time polymorphism, etc. I took function pointers as an example of why "supporting dynamic dispatch" is irrelevant for categorizing programming languages as OOP / not OOP (and I would even say that doing such a categorization is in itself a worthless idea). > you call a procedure and wait for it to produce a single value as the resulting output before proceeding I must admit my ignorance : which languages except prolog don't work like this ? |
|
|
Again, like everywhere else in your comments, you're conflating and confusing the language with the model/paradigm and keep trying to shove a language into a programming paradigm. Firstly, you can do OOP in assembly and yet it's not an "OOP language". The language is quite independent of the paradigm. Secondly, who was even trying to categorize languages here? You keep thinking the argument is about categorizing languages and then refute a nonexistent discussion...
> I must admit my ignorance : which languages except prolog don't work like this ?
Again: the discussion is not about trying to shove languages into categories; it's about programming paradigms. You can use the same language to code in multiple paradigms.
Look up "actor-oriented programming". It's a different model meant for concurrent processes, i.e. it's not a subroutine model since you don't need to wait for the procedure to finish and produce a result before continuing.
There are lot of "models of computation" out there (probably a better search term than "programming paradigm", btw) and people go so far as to do PhDs on these. I suggest looking around and not assuming everything is some trivial variation of OOP or FP or DP (declarative programming) or whatever you saw in undergrad.