Thus it was written in the epistle of Sohrt, Jeff,
> Paul wrote:
>
> > I guess I didn't read it as claiming that COBOL can do what
> > C++ can do.
> > It's just making a statement that COBOL has abilities that
> > are often overlooked,
> > and has had an "object oriented" type capability, long before
> > that became a buzz
> > word.
> >
> Paul, I agree.  I think the point that was being made is that "oo" is rooted
> deep into the beginnings of anything for which you start to lay a
> foundation, i.e. reusable code.  Thus once written, no need to reinvent.
> And you can take a library of routines, and put them into an SL, XL or
> whatever.  Like one person mentioned previously, the concept of "dll"
> existed on the HP way before Microsoft came up with it.

I'm no expert in object-oriented programming, but I think that Ken is right.
There is considerably more to OO than reusable code and libraries.  COBOL is
unquestionably valuable, I don't disagree with that, and I think that the
class of problems for which object-orientation simplifies rather than
complicates the problem is much narrower than most OO-evangelists think.  But
the class does exist.

Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================
Whoever . . . proves his point and demonstrates the prime truth geometrically
should be believed by all the world, for there we are captured.
                                        -- Durer, Albrecht (1471-1528)
          ==========================================================
         Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted