Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Feb 2007 11:15:50 -0800
On Feb 8, 11:01 am, ggro...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:40 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But that is about compiler speed optimization and IDE hints
(programmer search utils), not about the meaning of OO itself.
But OO *itself* is not based on sets, and that is a drawback of OO.
Not at all, because the categorisation techniques that type
substitutability
provides are trivial to add, which is a benefit, not a drawback. This
means the
OO concept is sound because it can be extended orthogonally with such
ease.
Demonstrate its shiney greatness by showing how OO improves biz apps
using objective metrics. Oh, I forgot: you are a dark-age alchemist,
you don't believe in science.
Regards,
Steven Perryman
-T-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: ggroups
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- References:
- Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: topmind
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: ggroups
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: topmind
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: ggroups
- Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Relational-to-OOP Tax
- Next by Date: Re: Relational-to-OOP Tax
- Previous by thread: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Next by thread: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Index(es):