Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

"tlmfru" <lacey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:yDNLj.27645$KJ1.1559@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If I may stick my oar in here - Pete, make sure that when you use a term
> with meaning in both OO and non-OO that your reader knows exactly what
you
> mean.

Peter, I'm getting so tired of this I can't be bothered any more.

I'm happy to discuss Object based development and relate how I use it. I'm

not happy to enter an academic argument about the intimate details of OOA,

OOD, and OOP, because it really isn't relevant (in those terms) to what I
do 
every day, and I haven't worked on any sites where it is.

I work on sites where they use Object approaches (as I do myself) to
achieve 
useful solutions. Nobody I know, who actually works in the real world 
rigidly applies this theory.(And I have worked with people who are expert
in 
it)

It is relevant insofar as an academic understanding is required; not to 
actually get stuck in and build systems with it.

And you don't need a masters degree in computer science to understand OO.

>
> A discussion between us last year foundered when you used a word -
> function - that meant in non-OO terms that the program /system did not
> perform that particular necessary process, while in OO it means
something
> completely different.

Get over it. :-)

>
> Natural language is slippery.

Yes, it is. Oddly enough I write thousands of words every year, have them 
published in various magazines, newspapers, and on the web, and this is
the 
ONLY place where people have trouble understanding me...

I have to ask myself whether my time here is being well spent.

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