> My example was about imperative languages. You assertion on how many ways one could screw up on OO is irrelevant and besides, you'd really need a good understanding of OO to even try implementing those.
Isn't OOP languages also imperative, at least most of those languages (java, C++, .Net, etc)?
I thought that OO was mostly an "structural" paradigm, where you organize your code as objects and methods that apply to those data structures, and you got inheritance and stuff like that.
Imperative programming on the other hand is about programming with statements, no matter if you are using gotos, routines, objects, etc. You just instruct the computer how to change from state to state.
Comments
> My example was about imperative languages. You assertion on how many ways one could screw up on OO is irrelevant and besides, you'd really need a good understanding of OO to even try implementing those.
Isn't OOP languages also imperative, at least most of those languages (java, C++, .Net, etc)?
I thought that OO was mostly an "structural" paradigm, where you organize your code as objects and methods that apply to those data structures, and you got inheritance and stuff like that.
Imperative programming on the other hand is about programming with statements, no matter if you are using gotos, routines, objects, etc. You just instruct the computer how to change from state to state.