I am skeptical that a concept as nebulous as "web 2.0" or a re-appropriated word like agile will ever return to a meaningful concept as the author suggests. This seems to generally be the fate of phrases used as rallying cries.. just look at the history of the word "liberal".
OO, on the other hand, is quite a specific and well defined approach, as Tracy noted, and it seems unfair to lump that in the same pot "Agile". On 12/19/06, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > "But now, years later, the essential meaning of OO is reasonably well > understood." > > That statement alone makes me question the author's competence. > > There are about 9 characteristics that "define" OO (I wish I could find > that article--I think it was on one of the Lisp resources). Every > language seems to use a slightly different subset of those 9 and creates > religious wars of the "We're real OO!"--"No you're not!" type. The essential meaning of OO is indeed reasonably well understood. You are talking about the bickerings of pedants. -- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
