On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Russ P. <russ.paie...@gmail.com> wrote: (...)
> Wait a minute. Aren't the guy who just took me to task about the > definition of functional programming? So the definition of functional > programming is written in stone, but the definition of OO programming > is written in smoke? Did anyone say that ? OO concepts are a much studied concept. However -you- still miss the basic point. OO programming -is- a model not a paradigm. Functional Programming -is- a paradigm. > Just for the record, I really don't care much about the definition of > OO programming. I brought it up only because someone tried to claim > that "enforced" encapsulation is a terrible idea. Well, as far as I > can tell, the majority of OO "programmers" (and software engineers, > software architects, etc.) seem to think otherwise. Maybe they are > wrong -- but I seriously doubt it. Ever thought that perhaps you might be the one that's wrong ? Not that it really matters, but I am a Software Engineer myself. > As I said before, enforced encapsulation may not be appropriate for > every application, but it is definitely appropriate for some. Not > every door needs a lock, but certainly some do. Your analogy is terrible. We are talking about machines that execute instructions in a sequence. At the most basic level do you really think a machine really cares about whether -you- the programmer has illegally accessed something you shouldn't have ? --JamesMills -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
