On 06/08/2012 00:12, Roy Smith wrote:
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.
Ask nicely and I'll lend you my copy of Martin Fowler's UML Distilled
which covers "version 1.2 OMG UML standard". What's it up to now,
version 17.38?
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
