On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote: > You won't solve the problem of confusing, ambiguous, or conflicting > terminology by making up a rule. "Object-oriented" means subtly different > things to different people.
That's a problem, not a solution. > It turns out that computing is a complex field > with subtle concepts that don't always fit neatly into a categorization. But that is the point of having a *field*. > Python, Java, Javascript, Ruby, Smalltalk, Self, PHP, C#, Objective-C, and > C++ are all "object-oriented", but they also all have differences between > them. That's OK. We aren't going to make up a dozen words as alternatives > to "object-oriented", one for each language. Well, you won't, but other people *in the field* already have, fortunately. They have names like dynamically-typed, statically-typed, etc. > You seem to want to squeeze all of computer science and programming into a > tidy hierarchy. No on "squeeze" and "tidy". Maybe on "hierarchy". > It won't work, it's not tidy. I strongly suggest you read > more about computer science before forming more opinions. You have a lot to > learn ahead of you. Okay, professor is it, master? What is your provenance anyway? > --Ned. -- :) -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
