Sorry to be a grouch, but can we change this thread to OO instead of the advertised TeX:hurrah! thread?
I'm interested in the TeX news, but not so interested in the OO/language debate that no doubt will go on for a while... Thanks! -joe On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerh...@wlu.ca>wrote: > Ok--so it's agreed that it's not OO that's the problem, it's the users, > then, who don't know which tool to use when. Not at all the same thing. > > And to be pedantic, since you give this example, the sun does revolve > around the earth, so long as you choose the earth as your point of > reference... Certain points of reference are to be preferred for certain > things, as you said. So OO or not, as appropriate. > > K > > >>> "Patrick Kelly" <kameo76...@gmail.com> 16/04/2010 1:55:50 pm >>> > > I was just speaking generally. > One of my major programming languages is Ada, and I doubt anyone would say > that isn't big on provability. I've used objects a couple times, in places > where they do in fact help, but those cases are, in general, not read > properly. Using an object in the wrong place, which is most places, does > lead to worse code. For most people, using the wrong tool for the wrong job > is foolish, but for OOP lovers... > > The question isn't how do you prove it does reduce static provability, but > how do you prove it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that the sun > revolves around the earth, but we all know that's not true. That being said, > there are studies out there about using the wrong paradigm for the wrong > job, objects do come up. >
