Re: The Gist of Object Oriented Programming

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 04/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:55:06 GMT

> > So somebody overloaded the term "functional programming" to mean
> > something other than {functional decomposition}? I would consider this
> > an error if they did. Just like the error of the term "worthless" meaning
> > something other than {worth less}. Something that is "worthless" is not
> > {worth less} it is {worth nothing}. I consider this to be an error by
> > whomever starting this term.
>
> Functional programming has only ever had one meaning. Any overloading that you
> see is a misinterpretation on your part. The term has never meant "functional
> decomposition".
>
> Claudio Puviani
>
Then it seems to me, that what-ever it does mean could have more
aptly been attached to another term that is more descriptive of what
it actually is.