C'mon John, you know better than that!

Your 'paint based on metadata' is absolutely *not* OOP in any way, shape or form.

I wonder why there is a C++ if one could do OOP with "any" language???

JVP was way off on this one. So much so that one has to think it was a deliberate taunt (though why, only god would know).

Cheers,

Jim N

>Hi Mark ---
>
>>>I would submit that "pure-oop" does not exist. OO is all about analysis and design and is language indepdendent. For example, you can employ OO design principles with FoxPro 2.x - or any language for that matter.
>>
>>With all due respect, John, I think it's very difficult--to the point of practical impossibility--to implement inheritance without language support.
>
>Change "implement" to "automate" and I would agree with you. But John is right, you can "OOP it" in just about any language: It's just cumbersome. I mean, a concrete example in FP2.6:
>
>I used to have a mechanism to paint a screen based on a metadata table I had created. The program read the metadata, converted it to @SAY/GET and did the READ. Each record in the metadata file could be considered a member of a form class.
>
>I'm sure I could think of others but...... :-)