Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)


"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jaaqu3hk4cuqm38cu7uv09elamk239nsi3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:08:44 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

Well, no, I didn't write it!

Here is the missing attribution.
< http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/4/lec/14 >
-----
Why did the originators of object orientation rename "structures" to
"objects"
and "procedures" to "methods"? Hubris and arrogance, in my opinion.
Some
people believe object orientation is a completely new "paradigm" for
programming. The best known paradigms for computer languages are these.
-----

I believe it was to divorce their design from programming terms. Of
course, that didn't last.

Why is "to divorce their design from programming terms"
[used previously, assumed] not "[h]ubris and arrogance"?


.

Relevant Pages