Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)


"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0af65c32-0960-4ba9-bf26-1769788c054d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 28, 1:07 pm, "tlmfru" <la...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
While wanting to use different terms, to avoid confusion and baggage, was
a
good idea, their choice was singularly poor. So far as I can tell EVERY
OO-oriented term carries unwanted meanings - e.g., my tiff last year with
PD
over "function".

Having said this, I'm fully aware that nobody will ever be able to prevent
newcomers to a field from trying to equate the new concepts to things
they're familar with.

So let's rename all object-oriented things as either completely new,
artificial words - fomas and granfalloons, for instance, for objects and
methods <wink> - or auto-oriented things. Then at least there will be no
overlap.

PL



http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.cobol/browse_thread/thread/f8a2dc2eb7689d9d/f3c4430fa6dad4ec?lnk

I have seen multi-page two column lists comparing oo terminology with what
came before. It was easy to see the parallels and I though I understood oo
programmming. I was wrong. I don't think I truly understood the power and
advantages of it until I read the book "Head First Design Patterns".


.

Relevant Pages