The discussion is about what constitutes an object-oriented *language*. C is
not object-oriented. C was created as a high-level assembly language, and
that's what it's best for.

As someone already mentioned in this thread, you could write
"object-oriented" code in assembly language too. But languages that are not
*inherently* object-oriented are a nightmare to do this kind of work in,
especially on the maintenance end.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what's in your brain if you can't express it
in an understandable way. Have you ever talked to a brain? Neither has the
computer.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From:	squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Markus
Fritsche
Sent:	Sunday, April 28, 2002 12:57 AM
To:	squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject:	Re: How do you define "object-oriented"?

Am Samstag, 27. April 2002 01:17 schrieben Sie:

> If you spend enough time developing in languages like C and C++, BASIC,
> Pascal, FORTRAN, and COBOL, it changes the way you think. Instead of
> thinking about the real-world entities that you're trying to represent,
you
> end up jamming these notions into whatever language structure will hold
> them.

Object oriented programming is not a matter of the language, it's a matter
of
the programmers brain. Look at GTK+ to see, how you could program a "object
oriented" windowing toolkit in C...

Regards, Markus