Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
[snip]
> It's certainly a myth than "big projects" *can't* be developed
> without OO. Well, unless you consider an operating system, a
> programming language, or an editor to be small projects--and I for
> one do not. OO can help, sure, but not a trifle as much as can a
> sound design. And as we all know, good design is orthogonal to OO.
> Unfortunately.
I am a bit dense here. 'Orthogonal' in the sense the one does not imply
the other or that they are mutually exclusive? For my money, I subscribe
to the former.
> I think I can with safely predict that sixth generation Perl will
> *not* elevate OO programming to compulsory and exclusionary use,
> as that would invalidate TMTOWTDI.
>
AMEN! I B<still> cannot figure out why Java mains have to be on object.
That's just borken and that's not a typo. I'll stop the Java rant short,
since it is off topic.
Hard as that is to do...
> --tom
--
Matthew O. Persico
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
