Thread: Simulating OOP with structs and function pointers?

Originally Posted by quzah

Will a search-and-replace make the function a member of that object? Is that what you're saying it does?

I don't know why you impart some magical quality on the syntax a->b() such that this causes b() to be a "part of" a. b() being part of a is something conceived in the programmer's mind, not an artifact of the way it's written.

That is how most people differentiate OO from procedural programming. The object has the functionality, versus the function takes objects. I don't know. To be honest, I never got the whole appeal of OOP. It just seems to me like it's an attempt to make sure people don't pass stupid things to functions.

I don't think of it that way, at least. To me, OOP means polymorphism.

Originally Posted by brewbuck

To me, OOP means polymorphism.

Yes, I regard OOP as the use of polymorphism through inheritance (as opposed to ad hoc polymorphism through function overloading and parametric polymorphism through some kind of template mechanism). The aspects of abstraction and encapsulation are certainly important aspects of OOP as well, but are not unique to OOP.