Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:07:24 GMT
Message-ID: <41b82302.5812265_at_news.wanadoo.es>
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:54:02 +0100, "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:
>> No, but the complete mess in the OO terminology is the cause of many
>> confusions.
>
>A myth, apparently based on an early view on OO not in sync with present
>understanding of the field.
Where is the present understanding of the field?
>But the value of a (academic) subject should not be measured on how it is
>understood or represented by those who has lesser knowledge on the subject.
When I was studying, OO still was not an academic subject, but I have readen recent college notes and they use exactly the same messy terminology as the trade media.
In some universities I know, OO is a rather new subject, it is teached by the youngest teachers, and the sources they used to make the course notes were the trade media publications :(
Could you post references for serious OO definitions?
Regards Received on Thu Dec 09 2004 - 11:07:24 CET