Defining definition

Post #45,330 by tablizer 7/12/02 4:27:29 PM Reply	Defining definition (* Any claims of suitability, "what everyone does", or resorting to your own definitions are merely hand-waving on your part, and do not change this. *) I hate to tell you this, but "what everyone does" is pretty much how words get defined. You are not the Sole Oracle of Definitions. If there is no bearing on common opinion, then why should I accept your definition over mine anyhow? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #45,335 by folkert 7/12/02 4:43:17 PM Reply	Mister... Egads the man instantiated classes in SED for chris-sake... How much more INANNE can you get than that. It shows that OO is just a way to classify and flow the program... not the be all, end all you obviously think OTHERS think it is. We can (given a bit of time and effort from somone other than you) use XBASE in an OO way. Easily you fail to understand the principle of the matter. Just because someone chooses to use OO does not mean thier programming is in anyway shape or form inferior... OR superior either. What it does mean, there is a frame of work to use, and a framework to construct by, and framework to reference, a framework to work within, a framework to make other frameworks, a framworke to embbed another framework, a framework to be used in the wrong way, a framewaork to be ignored if they so choose. That last statement, applies to nearly EVERYTHING built in this world, be it digital, analog or physical. We understand, you believe OO is not the way of the world. I believe you are just a person trying to force us to your way of thinking... as my favorite saying goes... "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" `greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!`
Post #45,431 by tablizer 7/13/02 1:12:39 AM Reply	Frameworks and votes There are frameworks for p/r also. They just tend to look and work differently. (* We understand, you believe OO is not the way of the world. I believe you are just a person trying to force us to your way of thinking *) That is exactly what OO has done to the industry, forced everybody into it wether they like it or not. Javatization has ruined the field. There is no survey that shows most programmers prefer OO. Heck, many "high end OO experts" claim that most production programmers don't even know what OO is. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #45,513 by folkert 7/14/02 3:05:57 AM Reply	Now... That we understand each other... Bryce leave it at that... I know that frameworks are in everything that are programmed... It is just a matter of taste in the way you do things... You can really(technically feasible but not reccomended)) even do assembly in an OO way... just like you can do it the p/r way... Just because you don;t like OO, doesn't mean NO-ONE should... And just because OO "bigots" Like Scott Anderson (sorry for the dig there Scott), he shouldn;t expect people to forego anything OTHER than OO... So like I am asking, OO is just as good and just as bad as ANY other way of programming... they all have thier goods and bads... You just learn to deal with them the way you prefer... That is really what we have been trying to come to the agreement on. You sometimes tend to make this an all or nothing arguement, which of course it cannot be. Thanks for the millions of keystrokes on this subject... lets wear out the ketboards on something else... Shall we? `greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!`
Post #45,659 by tablizer 7/15/02 12:54:12 PM Reply	Erect Ape (* Just because you don;t like OO, doesn't mean NO-ONE should ) 1. I am saying that OOP is currently over-hyped and forced on too many programmers in practice. There are fewer places to get to get away from it. 2. OO fans here still seem to think that OOP is objectively* better, and that those who don't like it are flawed upstairs not to see that. CRC called OOP "a natural and logical extension to structured programming" (paraphrased) as if it is an upright-walking ape. If the hype about OO died down and more p/r techniques and API's came into the mix, then I would not be fussing nearly as much. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #45,717 by Ashton 7/15/02 9:10:12 PM Reply	Hey.. I feel the same way about the tyranny of Organized Religions\ufffd - and especially re the secondary effects, all so neatly chronicled by now. But since this mindset leads to the periodic heaped dead burned bodies (in God's Name), I tend to think about the topic as not.. a mere bagatelle. But I don't expect the momentum to cease any time soon - not even as WW-The Last opens. 'We' aren't ready to break this habit, no matter the Next body-count. Or the Next. Maybe it's ditto re Your fav Windmill? (however a much more trivial ultimate decision, it would seem.) Hell, maybe none of this stuff is Real? Ashton Quixote Productions LLC Tell us Your Troubles and we'll explain how it was that You Caused Them.. cha cha cha.
Post #45,852 by tablizer 7/17/02 1:16:12 AM Reply	What we need are more DISorganized religions? Hmmm ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!

"YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!"