Is this supposed to be some sort of wake-up call or call-to-arms to all the CS lemmings who have been hoodwinked by Sun into the realm of jargon over substance?
Please do some informed research and homework before spouting off with such blather. Sun Microsystems is hardly The Great Satan of OOP, trying to foist object-speak on the rest of humanity. The object concepts of classes, methods, instances, inheritance, polymorphism, etc. were already well on their way into the CS consciousness before Java came on the scene. To attempt to relate the emergence of object concepts as starting with Java simply illustrates a lack of historical awareness. To omit so obvious a Java precursor as Smalltalk seriously undermines any authority you may have once had on this topic. It is easy to attack "terminology" as "jargon," but in fact, precise definitions of terms help improve communication of complex concepts. Unfortunately, some of the concepts *are* complex - we just recently on this forum had someone ask about "polymorphism" when what they really meant was "overloaded method signatures." (It is even more unfortunate that language features such as overloaded method signatures and operator overloading get equated with OOP, simply because OO language XYZ supports them.) I would say that terminology becomes jargon when it introduces new terms that do not really help describe any new concepts, but simply raise an arbitrary barrier to new students of the field. And *any* complex field's terminology will be perceived as jargon to those who have not done adequate study - are you about to begin a parallel crusade to attack the jargon-spewing conspiracy among quantum physicists, what with their terms of top, down, spin, charm, muon, meson, lepton, etc.? Your complaint about Java requiring all code to reside in a class is not new. It is a common newbie issue that one has to get past "static void main(string[] args)" just to do a simple "Hello, World!". But this seems to be a minor point for someone as authoritative as yourself to waste over 1000 words on. All computing languages have good and bad features. Determining whether Java's "classes-only" language design is "good" or "bad" is something of a point of view - let it go that some folks find it overly purist and a nuisance, while others like the uniformity of implementation. You certainly seem to have a lot of energy and enthusiasm for these topics. It would be nice if you could find a way to illuminate and educate, without falling prey to the urge to pontificate. If you really have some points to make, put away the breathless and profane debate style - it just gets in the way of anything you're trying to say. Really, we are *mostly* adults here, and can make up our own minds on most things. -- Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
