In article 26545@alice.att.com, peju@alice.att.com (Peter Juhl) writes:
>
>
> jln2@cec2.wustl.edu (Sammy D.) writes:
>
> >I learned OOP from Flavors, I knew OOP well, and believe me, C++ is not
> >an OOP language  (apologies to Senator Benson).
>
> I learned foreign languages from German, I know German well, and believe
> me, English is not German.
>
> To strengthen my case I'll add that I also learned French, believe me,
> English is not French.
>
> --- peter (peju@research.att.com)

I learned to talk from my mother, I know how to talk reasonably well, and
believe me, vocalized gibberish is not speech anymore than C++ is an OOPL.

Nevin

In article n6b@cnn.sim.es.com, npratt@glacier.sim.es.com (Nevin Pratt) writes:

> > jln2@cec2.wustl.edu (Sammy D.) writes:
> >
> > >I learned OOP from Flavors, I knew OOP well, and believe me, C++ is not
> > >an OOP language  (apologies to Senator Benson).
> >
> > I learned foreign languages from German, I know German well, and believe
> > me, English is not German.
> >
> > To strengthen my case I'll add that I also learned French, believe me,
> > English is not French.

> I learned to talk from my mother, I know how to talk reasonably well, and
> believe me, vocalized gibberish is not speech anymore than C++ is an OOPL.
>
> Nevin

Actually, my post (above) was also gibberish, and I don't really feel
that strongly about the statement at the end of the last sentence.
My apologies.

I just didn't think that the human languages analogy offered in response
to the 'C++ is not an OOP language' was a valid analogy, since OOP is
not a language, but rather a code packaging technique.  Therefore, if
C++ is analogous to English, then OOP would more likely be analogous to,
say, the typewriter (or whatever) that is used to write in English,
rather than being analogous to the German language.

This thread is silly.  Sorry to waste your time.

Nevin