Re: Did I write a good (efficient) program?

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:6JOdndZWVIsByGvanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:bjccv3dhk21osd4upu7ct4r2poc3ustjrc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:31:14 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Therein lies the problem, Mr Dashwood! While you advocate
>> >the OO paradigm, you don't actually use it--preferring your own
>> >principles to those of the paradigm. <g>
>>
>> If OO is a tool, and not a religion - he is free to use what parts are
>> useful to produce the desired product.
>>
>> Same thing with relational databases and 2x4s.
>
> If language is to be used for communication, then calling
> a combination of parts from a Toyota, a Ford, and a Yugo,
> a Mercedes-Benz, isn't going to communicate accurately the
> composite; though Toy-For-Yu would at least indicate a
> composite.
>
> To understand others, I rely on definitions and usages supplied
> by sources I find credible. According to those sources, the
> OO paradigm consists of three parts: OOA, OOD, and OOP,
> with OOD the linchpin. Any marked deviation from the
> principles of OOD means thar OO paradigm does not apply.
>
> I may be confused by the choices others make; but, if it has
> no direct effect on me, I have learned not to care that much
> about what others do. Abuse of a term I have spent years to
> understand well does have a direct affect on me.
>
OK that is fair comment and I understand what you're saying.

However, you know as well as I do, that in the real world, millions of 
people are using OO concepts every day WITHOUT necessarily applying the 
rigourous definition you gave above. And even expert authorities on the 
subject may differ in exactly what they mean by certain terms.

If people are working with objects and classes and applying design and 
development methodologies based on these concepts, then it is kind of
small 
minded to say they are not using OO, because they are at variance with one

strict academic definition of whatever that is.

Nevertheless, I understand now why you took exception to my previous post.

Here's what I suggest:

You try and be less sensitive to loose usage of terms which, at least for 
you, have strict meanings. Realise that not all discussions are academic.

I'll try and be more careful when I talk about what I consider is OO. (Or 
maybe I just won't post here at all...)

I am genuinely sorry you were caused offence by my post. It was never 
intended to do that.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."