Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:66afacF2iuc6lU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "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.

Get used to it.  :-)

>
> 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.
>
> >
> > 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. :-)
>

Most people can make their point without being a jerk about it.  I posed a
perfectly acceptable question, based upon what you had said, and which you
could have cleared up in twenty words or less.  Instead you became like
the
"Englishman abroad" of storied fame who grouses that "These damned wogs
ought to speak English".

> >
> > 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.
> --


Oddly enough I write thousands of words every year, on all sorts of
subjects, in all kinds of media, and it's only here where I encounter
people
who refuse to answer my questions because I don't speak the language.

PL