In article <501ef904$0$29867$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:45:47 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > > Don't look for Object-Oriented Programming -- since the first widely > > popular OOP language was C++ (Smalltalk was earlier, but rather > > specialized, whereas C++ started as a preprocessor for C). > > > > Rather look for Object-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD). An OOAD > > textbook /should/ be language neutral and, these days, likely using the > > constructs/notation of UML [which derived from a merger of two or three > > separate proposals for OOAD tools] > > Good lord. I'd rather read C++ than UML. And I can't read C++. UML is under-rated. I certainly don't have any love of the 47 different flavors of diagram, but the basic idea of having a common graphical language for describing how objects and classes interact is pretty useful. Just don't ask me to remember which kind of arrowhead I'm supposed to use in which situation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
