Talk:Object-based

Untitled

I always thought object-based programming was not related to a limited feature-set of the OO language, but rather the programmer using a limited set of features. In object-based programming, the programmer does not create classes but merely uses the classes previously created. I do not see this sense in the article.

---

09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC):

(1) That first comment, just above, was already here when I first happened upon this article and page.

(2) Presently, Wikipedia has separate articles for "Object-based" and "Object-based language". I have no idea which article was created first, or what the rationale was for creating a second, separate article, or why the two articles are inconsistent with each other. (Their respective definitions of what it means to be object-based are not the same, or even equivalent, and I am not sure which of the two definitions is better or correct.) There was no prior discussion of any of these matters when I first got here.

Obviously the articles are on two separate, independent tracks, but they ought to be harmonized (or else one of them eliminated). Someone who knows better and more precisely than I the definition of "object-based" will have to take care of this.

(3) The previous edition of this article gave only one example of an object-based language: Ada. The article did not indicate whether Ada is "object-based" in the first or second sense of the term.

Moreover, the previous edition of this article did not indicate which version of Ada was meant (83? 95? some other?). It makes a difference, because -- at least according to Wikipedia's article on Ada -- Ada 95 is object-oriented!

So, was Ada classified as object-based because whoever added the example considers "Ada" and "Ada 95" two different languages, or because even the changes to the language that were completed in 1995 were deemed insufficient to qualify the language as object-oriented?

• If Ada 95 is the one that is object-based, then there ought to be an explanation of why it is not considered object-oriented.

• On the other hand, if an earlier version of Ada is the one that is object-based, then there ought to be a note indicating that a later version of Ada is object-oriented.

Since I cannot tell which version of Ada is (supposed to be) object-based, or which sense of the term is supposed to apply to it, or what to say about Ada 95, and which explanation to give as to why Ada isn't object-oriented, I decided to simply remove the reference to Ada as an example of an object-based language. Of course, if someone who knows more about Ada than I do (and than can be found on Wikipedia) wants to put the reference back in, and can do so with all of the necessary specificity and clarification, be my guest!

In the meantime, I added two other examples of "object-based" languages (Visual Basic and JavaScript), one for each sense of the term. I got these two examples from the existing Wikipedia entry for "Object-based language".

BinaryBill 09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

This paper defines object-based language quite explicitly. They say object-oriented is a subset of class-based, which is a subset of object-based. Ada belongs solely to the object-based set, as it does not have classes or inheritance. They don't mention prototype-based languages, but it looks like they'd be a distinct subset from class-based ones:

   object-based - class-based      - object-oriented
                - prototype-based

Note that this paper predates Ada95, which the Ada article said added the object-oriented language features. So it's not really a contradiction; they're describing a different language.

- Slamb 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

TOGA

I think the paragraph on TOGA should be split out to its own article or deleted. Comments? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)