>>33
Mine is
ENTERPRISE? Are you completely ignorant of OO outside of whatever cudderforsaken language you've convinced yourself is usable? "Method call" is a confused way to say "send a message". In OO, objects have methods to respond to messages, and when an object is sent a message that it does not understand, it has a method for that too. Methods are implementation details and are distinct from messages. A programmer using an object never needs to know whether it implements a particular method or not (although it is helpful to know if that object has a strategy for managing your message).
Your talk of "fancy ways" betrays your deep misunderstanding. You're trying to phrase OO in Ctard terms when OO and the terms associated with it were defined before C ever arrived. C structs and functions can be used to approximate usable OO, but that does not make them its substrate.
Lastly, I'm not
>>32, who pretty clearly doesn't understand OO. OO isn't a modeling tool, it's a tool for easily writing programs that require extreme late binding. It's not the
only tool for that (Lisp and functional languages are good for this too), but that is its purpose.