Re: General semantics
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a6f72c06-ec7f-4e1f-83c0-8199502cd372_at_o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On 21 mai, 17:44, Clifford Heath <n..._at_spam.please.net> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Having tried for more than 30 years to discard RM, OO crowd is now
> > reinventing (attempting to) RM.
>
> Maybe. But the "objects" of object role modeling have nothing to do
> with the object of the O-O crowd. The word object in ORM was derived
> from linguistics, and in use before the term O-O was invented.
Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could
only have originated in California.
Edsger Dijkstra
> The only ones displaying the behaviour of the faithful here are those
> who rubbish things they know nothing about.
The faithful or perhaps the one who has limited time to waste on
making sense out of nonsense. That is one good thing with OO
*mindset* (or whatever one can qualify it: it is always sloppy
anyway): It does not require much to identify its nonsense.
That, of course, if one has a minimum of logic, IS education and perhaps *some* common sense. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 20:34:55 CEST