Root Object == OO !?! [Was: Re: My strange service with an error]

java-programmer, Root Object == OO !?! [Was: Re: My strange service with an error] Lew wrote:

> (I've read a definition that a language that enforces a single Object root
> type is "object-oriented", whereas a language like C++ that allows root
> types other than Object is "object-supporting".)

You do seem to have a talent for finding the most astounding drivel ;-) Where
did you find that particular crock of moonshine ?

-- chris

(P.S. I don't at all dispute that C++ is better described as "supporting OO"
than as being an OO language -- but that's nothing at all to do with its lack
of a single root class.)

java-programmer >> Root Object == OO !?! [Was: Re: My strange service with an error] Lew wrote:
>> (I've read a definition that a language that enforces a single Object root
>> type is "object-oriented", whereas a language like C++ that allows root
>> types other than Object is "object-supporting".)

Chris Uppal wrote:
> You do seem to have a talent for finding the most astounding drivel ;-) Where
> did you find that particular crock of moonshine ?
>
> -- chris
>
> (P.S. I don't at all dispute that C++ is better described as "supporting OO"
> than as being an OO language -- but that's nothing at all to do with its lack
> of a single root class.)

Well, I do seem to have a talent for drivel, both borrowed and original.

And I likely misremember the argument; it's been a few years and I do not
remember the source or all the details. It might have been C++'s support for
global things that contributed to the assessment, but as I recall the argument
suggested that an "object-oriented" language is all about objects, and
typically is single-rooted, whereas an "object-supporting" language lets you
create structures not in the "normal" object hierarchy.

I am glad for your feedback on this - it makes me think about both the point
of that distant article and how I go about regurgitating the related ideas.

- Lew