Christof,

I haven't looked in depth at your sample yet.

But if one wants to have genuine OOP, with parctical properties, events and methods in quantities that are relevant, I think we have a different case on our hands.

In reality I would say that one *could* do an OOP facility in virtually any language, but the cost/overhead of doing so would be extremely high. Might be interesting as an exercise, but surely would not be marketable (here, of course, one should exclude Assembly and possibly even C).

But I recollect the original being a statement that OOP is more of a analysis/design concept than a programming concept. This clearly is wrong. The present suggested methodologies relevant to OOP are predicated on maximizing encapsulation, inheritance, reuse, etc. Without those constraints (benefits!) the practises could be much much different. Furthermore, it would take a lot to convince me that one would want to go through the same steps for a 'procedural' language. Some of them, possibly, but the basic whole package, I doubt.

Cheers,

Jim N

>Hi Mark,
>
>>If not, all someone has to do is give an example of a class hierarchy (in a real-world program) in a language without OOP (and COM doesn't count:).
>
>My sample doesn't count? < g >
>
>Christof