Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:0af65c32-0960-4ba9-bf26-1769788c054d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Mar 28, 1:07 pm, "tlmfru" <la...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
>


http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.cobol/browse_thread/thread/f8a2dc2eb7689d9d/f3c4430fa6dad4ec?lnk

I have seen multi-page two column lists comparing oo terminology with what

came before. It was easy to see the parallels and I though I understood oo

programmming.  I was wrong.  I don't think I truly understood the power
and 
advantages of it until I read the book "Head First Design Patterns".