Actually, in computers there are differences that make a difference and are not reducible to syntax. For example, late binding allows optimization with individual machines which is completely impossible with other options. The idea that layers in object-oriented programming are somehow like the layers in procedural programming is an idea that has to be smashed if we have any hope of getting people to see what design and architecture is all about. Whether you can "do" anything in both frameworks is really a horrible measure. Of course you can "do" anything in either one. Big deal! Can you do it well is the issue. If it were just what you can do, then why bother doing two frameworks in the first place?
On 3/8/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/8/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Basically, I'm going to claim that "anything you can do in an action > > oriented framework can also be done in a component oriented framework" > -- > > :) Didn't Turing prove that already :) > > Mathematically, anything we do with an IDE, you can do with punch > cards -- at least, given an infinite number of monkeys :) > > > > although there will clearly be use cases where it might be *easier* to > use > > one type or the other, saying that there is a fundamental difference is > not > > accurate :-). > > By the same token, you could also say that there is not a fundamental > difference between declarative programming and object-orientated > programming. > > :) But, I would wager that there are folks with a clear preference for > one or the other. :) > > -Ted. > http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/ > > > > > > The second session will be an introduction to Shale. > > > > I'll be posting the slides on my Apache page after the conference. > > > > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
