Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?

On 1 Mar, 17:17, "arnuld" <geek.arn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:48 pm, "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 Feb, 13:22, "arnuld" <geek.arn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 22, 10:53 pm, "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
it is trivial to consider procedural programming as a special case of
OO, OO gives you some extra bells and whistles that make life easier
(or more complex depending on what hat you've got on).

you mean one can learn OOD without learning procedural paradigm

?
technically yes....

it would be equivalent to learning to run without first learning to
walk though, once you'd learnt to run someone could tell you that
walking was just running slowly.

i did not get whether that was a +ve comment or -ve one. i mean, i did
not get whether you recommend precedural 1st or not. really sorry but
your reply is ambiguous to me :-(

thanks

-- arnuldhttp://arnuld.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I was sitting on the fence, it's the way I did it, but that's
mainly historical the point being that you probably don't need to
explicitly learn it, but procedural decomposition is an important
element of OOP.

To me it's just better to have a go.....preferably with something that
is simple, well supported, well documented and with a wealth of people
using it.....so C#, vb.net or java.......have a go...mess about get it
wrong and learn from the mistakes.....I would do this well before
picking up some tome of design from whatever paradigm.


.

Relevant Pages