Re: Process Model

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:45:33 GMT
Message-ID: <1mEcg.11914$A26.284015_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

David Cressey wrote:

> "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.

Should I then conclude you are unable to extract meaning from written english? This might then explain your different understanding of everything written in the language.

Your denial reeks of evasion and intellectual dishonesty. Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 15:45:33 CEST