Re: Object Oriented simpleton design pattern<g>

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance


"Robert Morley" <rmorley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:utXHU9CiHHA.1240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To MP: See, I told you in my initial response to you that there were
debates about whether VB6 could be considered OO or not. Here's one in
the
making right this minute! :-)



Rob



Yep, I'm aware of the controversy.
Even though I'm completly ignorant in the use of objects <g> I've been
"studying" the concepts for a several years now so i've seen many debates on
that
....yeah I know I'm really slow too....<g>

fortunately I'm inexperienced enough not to care if it is or not, just want
to learn best practices (even though I'm just an unpaid amature)

:-)

in my naive (mis?)-understanding, the difference i see between so-called
pure oo inheritance and vb's interface implementation is that with oo the
"inheriting" class automatically gets it's parents' method implementations
without having to re-code them internally(unless to override)
whereas with vb's interface implements you get the contract of the interface
but you have to re-write any implementation in any class that wants to use
it
....ie you always have to "override" the method..since the interface is
empty.

now if that isn't the worst bastardization of a comparison i don't know???
<vbg>

Mark


.

Quantcast