Just to be picky... > code to be executed by the processor. Machine language is not > object-oriented.
In some cases it is. The Rekursiv computer by Linn systems had a CPU that had an OO machine language which supported parallelism by exposing 'threads' as active objects at the machine code level. But if we leave experimental architectures aside and deal with the 99.99% of mainstream you are of coure correct :-) > It's not even procedural, or anything. And again some chips have been built with Forth as their native machine code (or more accurately with a FOrth intetpreter as their microcode) and it is procedural. And again such chips, while available commercially never exactly made it to mainstream. And if Sun ever get round to finishing their JVM on a chip we'll have a chip that is both OO and procedural! > Any program can be written in any (Turing-complete) programming > language. And again thats only true for algorithmically biased programs, event driven code integrated with the external environment needs to be more than simply Turing complete. A Turing complete language may have no I/O capability or interface to OS or hardware events, thus making event driven code impossible. But again I'm being picky, it must be the time of night! Alan G. _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
