c++ convert to oop(object oriented programing)

[jonnin]

on the OOP/ OOL thing... assembly supports OOP; all your c++ highest level most OOP stuff that can be written can be turned into asm. But assembly is not an OOL: the sytax does not support the ideas directly, the programmer has to DIY.

[Repeater]

I'm not talking about OOL (whatever that is),

Object Oriented Language. It's what you're talking about. Saying that you're not talking about it doesn't change the fact that it is, actually, what you're talking about.

It's what the Stroustrup quote you provided is talking about. it's written right there:

A language or technique is object-oriented if and only if it directly supports:

You are making the mistake that I talked about. You're looking at programming languages and thinking they are what programming is.

It's like thinking a novel writer is a typewriter operator. A novel writer's magic happens inside their head. The typewriter is a tool they use to help them express their ideas.

A programming language is a tool, a written notation, that programmers use to express themselves and to communicate ideas and intentions.

Object Oriented Programming is one way we can think; an Object Oriented Language is a tool we can use to help us express how we thought - a tool deliberately designed to make it easier for us to express ourselves if we used Object Oriented Programming in our thinking. But we don't have to use an OOL to express our thinking.

You are not the first person to make this mistake. It's a very common mistake; especially amongst beginners. I am sure I made this mistake myself.

When you have a number of different styles of programming language in your toolkit - object oriented, functional, declarative, imperative, and so on - the difference becomes clearer. Especially when you sit down to write your design and realise after ten minutes that you're using entirely the wrong programming language to express your thinking.

[againtry]

Is that what OOL means or are you trying to trick me?

[Repeater]

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/8678/object-oriented-language-ool

http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/gdpa/part3/p3oos.htm

http://www.rebol.com/article/0425.html

Don't get hung up on the language. The magic happens inside your head. The language is a tool by which you express your magic.

[againtry]

OOM inside your head.

[againtry]

The articles all claim to be referring to the language but the reality is they are talking about OOP.

[mbozzi]

LOL, tell that to Sassenrath

[Repeater]

The articles all claim to be referring to the language but the reality is they are talking about OOP.

You genuinely cannot tell the difference between how you think and how you write? This is not uncommon in people who are inexperienced programmers. They mistake the map for the territory.

It's like you're watching a car mechanic, and you think the skill needed is being able to operate a spanner.

It's like you're insisting that ONLY a car that is officially an "off road vehicle" can drive off the road. Like someone is showing you a normal city car driving over some mud, and you're saying it's impossible even as it's happening right in front of you.

If you insist that OOP is a programming language, how come people write object oriented C? Explain that. Shouldn't that be impossible?

Here's something amazing. I can do OOP on a piece of paper using NO language that even exists. How do you explain that?

[againtry]

:)

[George P]

There are some very persistent and popular myths about C++, one of them being "C++ is an Object-Oriented Language"

https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/12/myths-1 (Myth 2)

HINT: It ain't.

Please note who wrote the article, Saint Bjarne.

The "title page" for links to all 5 myths articles: https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/12/five-popular-myths-about-c-bjarne-stroustrup

[againtry]

If you insist that OOP is a programming language

Lucky me for not making that mistake.