Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

While wanting to use different terms, to avoid confusion and baggage, was a
good idea, their choice was singularly poor.  So far as I can tell EVERY
OO-oriented term carries unwanted meanings - e.g., my tiff last year with
PD
over "function".

Having said this, I'm fully aware that nobody will ever be able to prevent
newcomers to a field from trying to equate the new concepts to things
they're familar with.

So let's rename all object-oriented things as either completely new,
artificial words - fomas and granfalloons, for instance, for objects and
methods <wink> - or auto-oriented things.  Then at least there will be no
overlap.

PL


Howard Brazee <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:jaaqu3hk4cuqm38cu7uv09elamk239nsi3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:08:44 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >Why did the originators of object orientation rename "structures" to
> >"objects"
> >and "procedures" to "methods"?  Hubris and arrogance, in my opinion.
Some
> >people believe object orientation is a completely new "paradigm" for
> >programming.  The best known paradigms for computer languages are
these.
>
> I believe it was to divorce their design from programming terms.   Of
> course, that didn't last.