Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:66b4muF2jli9bU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Z4CdncSCCf-RM2LanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > The fact is that were one to encapsulate behaviors and
> > properties into (a COBOL 68 program as) an object, it
> > would not be more than what it appears to be.
>
> I make a simple statement, intended to express a concept. (There is a
> synergy obtained when you create objects. Part of that synergy is the
fact
> that you can use objects in many ways OUTSIDE of expressing them as
computer
> code.)

Please note the use of the plural "objects".

> "The fact is that when you encapsulate behaviours and properties into an
> Object, the synergistic whole, is far greater than the sum of its
>  parts. The code representation is only ONE aspect of it."

Please note the use of the singular "Object" preceded by
"an" suggesting an intent to use the singular.

Pete, make up your mind! <g> My response was predicated
on your use of the singular, meaning that the "synergistic
whole" is encapsulated within one object.

[snip]
> "Oh no, Pete. If I do that with COBOL 68 I don't have any synergy..."
>
> Well, Gee, Rick... might be time you moved off COBOL 68.

My references to COBOL 68 demonstrate that the
*academic* definition of "object" is so broad that even a
language that can not be use in object-oriented progamming
is included. This renders the definition of "object" absurd
and impractical.