begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:44:27AM -0500: > >From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] > >"Higher than assembly" does not mean "high level language". > > THats been the meaning of the term for the past 30 years. Sorry if you > don't like it, but thats the way it is.
As the sea rises, the terrian changes. I don't think I've *ever* heard of C referred to as a high-level language in 20 years. So no, that has *not* been the meaning of the term for the past 30 years. Maybe the first five years... > >> As for the OO > >> snipe- face it pure OO languages lost for a reason- OO just isn't that > >> useful. The reality is that OO was not the silver bullet everyone > >claimed. > > > >Who is this "everyone"? > > The people who pushed OO. How many of those pushed C++ as an example of OO? > >Pundits get paid to identify the next silver bullet. If they're right, > >great, but they get paid even if they're wrong. They don't get paid if > >they fail to make Great Pronouncements. So it's best to ignore all the > >"silver bullet" rhetoric as much as possible. > > We can agree on something! Oh happy day :) Heh. The world will be ending shortly. [snip] > In some ways its an improvement. In other ways it isn't- I'm not sure > going from badly modularized non-OO code to badly modularized OO code or > overly complex class hierarchies is really a step forward- if anything I > think its a step back (additional complexity with no gain). But yes, the > base problems and solutions are the same. Both cases should result in the code being thrown away -- so I don't see that much of a difference. I think it's easier to fix up OO code, as there are some powerful refactoring techniques that work well with OOLs, so it may be a step back in comprehensibility, but it may be easier to fix as well, given the right tools. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
