Re: Process Model

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:8G5cg.10841$A26.266491_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> David Cressey wrote:
>
> > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:V8Gbg.10236$A26.252515_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> >>>>I will assume Coad and Yourdon used 'functional decomposition' in its
> >>>>engineering sense and not in the computing sense for dividing tasks
for
> >>>>parallel execution.
> >>>
> >>>Coad and Yourden were discussing analysis, and mentioned functional
> >>>decomposition as a way of analyzing the problem domain. They were
> >
> > building
> >
> >>>towards a motivation for object oriented analysis, the subject of the
> >
> > book.
> >
> >>I am familiar with the book. I read it years ago, and I stand by all of
> >>my earlier statements.
> >
> > Your understanding of what you read is different from mine.
>
> That's the inevitable outcome when dealing with nebulous imprecision. It
> hardly merits saying.
>
>
> >>You posited some 'thing' unique to object orientation from which others
> >>could learn or which one could apply to other fields, and you gave it a
> >>name: 'process model'.
> >
> > When did I do that?
>
> Oh, puhlease... you know damned well when you did:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/58806cd6c7405bb0

Your interpretation of what I wrote is strange, to say the very least.

I posited nothing like what you say above. Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 12:33:37 CEST