>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.

Depends on the degree of OOP you need. FoxPro is extremly flexible and really a cool language. The possibility to define code at runtime and the weak typing make it a lot easier here.


>But I recollect the original being a statement that OOP is more of a analysis/design concept than a programming concept.

Well, I haven't followed the thread from the beginning, but I think it's both.

>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.

It's not my intention to convince you that you can write OOP in a procedural language. < s >

All I say is that you can apply a lot of what you learned in OOP to languages like FoxPro without writing much code. It depends on your definition of OOP whether you think that's OOP or not. The language is still procedural, but the techniques used there are similar to OOP, the design techniques you use for OOP apply here, etc.

Christof