Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types

  • Technical Contributions
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages (REX 1990)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 489))

Abstract

This tutorial collects and elaborates arguments for distinguishing between object-oriented programming and abstract data types. The basic distinction is that object-oriented programming achieves data abstraction by the use of procedural abstraction, while abstract data types depend upon type abstraction. Object-oriented programming and abstract data types can also be viewed as complimentary implementation techniques: objects are centered around the constructors of a data abstraction, while abstract data types are organized around the operations. These differences have consequences relating to extensibility, efficiency, typing, and verification; in many cases the strengths of one paradigm are the weaknesses of the other. Most object-oriented programming languages support aspects of both techniques, not a unification of them, so an understanding of their relative merits is useful in designing programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson and Sussman. The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. MIT Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. N. Adams and J. Rees. Object-oriented programming in Scheme. In Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Lisp and Functional Programming, pages 277–288, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. America. A behavioral approach to subtyping object-oriented programming languages. In Proc. of the REX School/Workshop on the Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. P. Atkinson and R. Morrison. Procedures as persistent data objects. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(4):539–559, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. R. Brown and G. Nelson. IO streams: Abstract types, real programs. Technical Report 53, Digital Equipment Corporation Systems Research Center, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Canning, W. Cook, W. Hill, J. Mitchell, and W. Olthoff. F-bounded polymorphism for object-oriented programming. In Proc. of Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 273–280, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Canning, W. Cook, W. Hill, and W. Olthoff. Interfaces for strongly-typed object-oriented programming. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 457–467, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Canning, W. Hill, and W. Olthoff. A kernel language for object-oriented programming. Technical Report STL-88-21, Hewlett-Packard Labs, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. L. Cardelli. A semantics of multiple inheritance. In Semantics of Data Types, volume 173 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 51–68. Springer-Verlag, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Cardelli, J. Donahue, L. Glassman, M. Jordan, B. Kalsow, and G. Nelson. Modula-3 report (revised). Technical Report 52, Digital Equipment Corporation Systems Research Center, Dec. 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. L. Cardelli and X. Leroy. Abstract types and the dot notation. Digital Equipment Corporation Systems Research Center, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. Cardelli and J. C. Mitchell. Operations on records. Technical Report 48, Digital Equipment Corporation Systems Research Center, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. Cardelli and P. Wegner. On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism. Computing Surveys, 17(4):471–522, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C. Chambers, D. Ungar, and E. Lee. An efficient implementation of SELF, a dynamically-typed object-oriented language based on prototypes. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 49–70, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. Cook. A Denotational Semantics of Inheritance. PhD thesis, Brown University, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  16. W. Cook and J. Palsberg. A denotational semantics of inheritance and its correctness. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 433–444, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. Danforth and C. Tomlinson. Type theories and object-oriented programming. Technical Report PP-040-87, MCC, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics. Springer-Verlag, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Goguen and J. Meseguer. Eqlog: Equality, types, and generic modules for logic programming. In Functional and Logic Programming, pages 295–363. Prentice-Hall, 1986. An earlier version appears in Journal of Logic Programming, Volume 1, Number 2, pages 179–210, September 84.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Goguen, J. Thatcher, E. Wagner, and J. Wright. Initial algebra semantics and continuous algebras. J. ACM, 24(1):68–95, January 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Goldberg and D. Robson. Smalltalk-80: the Language and Its Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Graver. Type-Checking and Type-Inference for Object-Oriented Programming Languages. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Guttag. Abstract data types and the development of data structures. Communications of the ACM, 20(6):297–404, June 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. V. Guttag and J. J. Horning. An introduction to the larch shared language. In IFIP, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. E. Johnson. Type-checking smalltalk. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 315–321, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  26. K. Kahn, E. Tribble, M. Miller, and D. Bobrow. Vulcan: Logical concurrent objects. In Research Directions in Object-Oriented Programming, pages 75–112. MIT Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. E. Keene. Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp. Addison-Wesley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  28. W. R. LaLonde, D. A. Thomas, and J. R. Pugh. An exemplar based smalltalk. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 322–330, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  29. G. T. Leavens and W. E. Weihl. Reasoning about object-oriented programs that use subtypes. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, 1990. to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  30. B. Liskov, A. Snyder, R. Atkinson, and C. Schaffert. Abstraction mechanisms in CLU. Communications of the ACM, 20:564–576, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  31. B. Liskov and S. Zilles. Programming with abstract data types. SIGPlan Notices, 9(4):50–59, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D. B. MacQueen. Using dependent types to express modular structure. In Proc. of the ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J. C. Mitchell and G. D. Plotkin. Abstract types have existential type. In Proc. of the ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  34. U. S. D. of Defense. Reference manual for the Ada programming language. ANSI/MIL-STD-1815 A, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  35. D. Parnas. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15:1053–1058, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  36. D. Parnas. A technique for software module specification. Communications of the ACM, 15:330–336, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  37. U. S. Reddy. Objects as closures: Abstract semantics of object-oriented languages. In Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Lisp and Functional Programming, pages 289–297, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  38. D. Rémy. Typechecking records and variants in a natural extension of ML. In Proc. of the ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 77–88, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. C. Reynolds. User-defined types and procedural data structures as complementary approaches to data abstraction. In New Advances in Algorithmic Languages, pages 157–168. Inst. de Recherche d'Informatique et d'Automatique, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Stallman, D. Weinreb, and D. Moon. Lisp Machine Manual. MIT AI Lab, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Stein, editor. Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Random House, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  42. M. Wand. Complete type inference for simple objects. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 37–44, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  43. M. Wand. Type inference for record concatenation and multiple inheritance. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 92–97, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  44. N. Wirth. Programming in Modula-2. Springer-Verlag, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  45. S. N. Zilles. Procedural encapsulation: A linguistic protection mechanism. SIGPlan Notices, 8(9):142–146, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, 1501 Page Mill Road, 94303-0969, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    William R. Cook

Authors
  1. William R. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

J. W. de Bakker W. P. de Roever G. Rozenberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cook, W.R. (1991). Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.P., Rozenberg, G. (eds) Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages. REX 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 489. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019443

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019443

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53931-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46450-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation