<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JavaScript Is Not &#8220;Truly&#8221; Object Oriented</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.engfers.com/2008/08/29/javascript-is-not-truly-object-oriented/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.engfers.com/2008/08/29/javascript-is-not-truly-object-oriented/</link>
	<description>» scrumptions blog &#038; code » nothing more, nothing less</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Caligula</title>
		<link>http://www.engfers.com/2008/08/29/javascript-is-not-truly-object-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-500</link>
		<dc:creator>Caligula</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:02:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.engfers.com/?p=276#comment-500</guid>
		<description>&#62; I am tired of people writing stuff in/about JavaScript and calling it Object Oriented without explaining the difference between true object-oriented languages and scripting languages like JavaScript.

And I'm tired of people believing that OO means only one thing.

Is Smalltalk OO? Of course it is--but most implementations have no concept of private variables, instead relying on convention. There's also instVarAt: and instVarAt:put: messages.

Is Self OO? Of course it is--it's also a prototypal-inheritance language.

(And what's a "scripting language"?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; I am tired of people writing stuff in/about JavaScript and calling it Object Oriented without explaining the difference between true object-oriented languages and scripting languages like JavaScript.</p>
<p>And I&#8217;m tired of people believing that OO means only one thing.</p>
<p>Is Smalltalk OO? Of course it is&#8211;but most implementations have no concept of private variables, instead relying on convention. There&#8217;s also instVarAt: and instVarAt:put: messages.</p>
<p>Is Self OO? Of course it is&#8211;it&#8217;s also a prototypal-inheritance language.</p>
<p>(And what&#8217;s a &#8220;scripting language&#8221;?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Main Reason For JavaScript Unreadability at engfer(s)</title>
		<link>http://www.engfers.com/2008/08/29/javascript-is-not-truly-object-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>The Main Reason For JavaScript Unreadability at engfer(s)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.engfers.com/?p=276#comment-444</guid>
		<description>[...] we said in another article &#8216;JavaScript Is Not &#8220;Truly&#8221; Object Oriented&#8216;, the difference between prototypal and object-based inheritance is the same difference [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] we said in another article &#8216;JavaScript Is Not &#8220;Truly&#8221; Object Oriented&#8216;, the difference between prototypal and object-based inheritance is the same difference [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
