Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:55:44 +0100
Message-ID: <41b8839a$0$260$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.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?
Eg. amongst the serious practitioners in 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 :(
Is it perhaps possible that you belong to those with lesser knowledge on the
subject?
> Could you post references for serious OO definitions?
Try Google on "Martin Fowler", although it is uncertain if that counts as
"serious" by you.
Received on Thu Dec 09 2004 - 17:55:44 CET