Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
In article <6ee2259e-8acb-4822-b0fb-922006515356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alistair <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Mar, 21:16, "Pete Dashwood"
"Structures" are NOT "objects" and there therefore is a good reason for not
retaining the procedural nomenclature; neither are "procedures" "methods",
just because on the surface they appear to be similar.
A horse is not a camel, despite both of them having a leg at each corner and
being used for transport.
Technically, there is very little difference between an earthworm, a
frog and a human (except for what theBible has to say about morphology
and anatomy).
'Technically' there is even less difference between what you cite and
between A-negative and B-positive human blood... now I'd appreciate it if
you'd keep away from dealing with transfusions.
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- From: Alistair
- Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- Prev by Date: Re: Confessions of a CoBOL programmer
- Next by Date: Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- Previous by thread: Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- Next by thread: Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
- Index(es):