RE: back to: improving rpg. was: what is object oriented programming

> From: Hans
>
> Anyways, just to be clear, that's how I see things. And I'm sure
> you'll find a way to dispute it.

Nope.  Nothing to dispute, because as usual you have completely avoided the
point.  "Prescriptivist" vs. "descriptivist"?  Give me a break.  Let's try
another big, fancy word: "obstructionist".  Or perhaps more appropriate,
"filibustering".  Because all you've managed to do is spend hundreds of
words avoiding the following two simple statements:

1. Information hiding is an OO concept.
2. Good OOPL design includes a formal data hiding mechanism.

This isn't "prescriptivist" anything.  It's simply a set of declarative
statements based on my readnig of the experts in the field.  Either agree or
refute.  Short sentences, Hans, address the issue, and leave the ten-dollar
words out of it.  No more verbal dancing.  You're very good at it, but it's
really a waste of time.

This was all brought about in response to your statement:

> For example, defining "get" and "set" methods to access particular
> pieces of data within an "object" isn't really a part of OO. While
> it's a technique commonly used in certain OO languages,
> "encapsulation" is more an aspect of "modular programming".

This statement is false ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED EXPERTS IN THE OO FIELD,
and is what I've addressed in my statements.  Everyone I can find, from
Bernard Meyer to Washington University to Edgers Djikstra to Rutgers to the
Cetus Links to Stanford to the Carnegie Mellon Institute all say the same
thing.  Please explain why you are right and they are ALL wrong, in short
sentences, and don't bring me into it, because it ain't about me, it's about
OO.

Joe