Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

> > Even better: pick one entry of your choice from > > http://images.google.com/images?q=%22don%27t+feed+the+troll%22 > > > Michele OMG and here I am thinking that Ken Rockwell's site is full of crap. This one's worse... Does the guy have a job? Or a life? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Michele Dondi wrote: > Even better: pick one entry of your choice from > > http://images.google.com/images?q=%22don%27t+feed+the+troll%22 I pick -- Lew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Arved Sandstrom wrote: > "Timofei Shatrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >> >>> Xah Lee wrote: >>> So, a simple code like this in norma

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:28:36 +0100, bugbear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Er. How about > >public class test { > public static void main(String[] args) { > String a = "a string"; > String b = "another one"; > StringBuffer c = a + b; > System.out.println(c); > } >} Even better:

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > bugbear wrote: >> Er. How about >> >> public class test { >> public static void main(String[] args) { >> String a = "a string"; >> String b = "another one"; >> StringBuffer c = a + b; > > String c (etc.),

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

"Timofei Shatrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > tried to confuse everyone with this message: > >>Xah Lee wrote: >> >>> So, a simple code like this in normal languages: > >>> becomes in Java:

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

bugbear wrote: > Er. How about > > public class test { > public static void main(String[] args) { > String a = "a string"; > String b = "another one"; > StringBuffer c = a + b; String c (etc.), that is. > System.out.println(c); > } > } -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/li

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Timofei Shatrov wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this > message: > >> Xah Lee wrote: >> >>> So, a simple code like this in normal languages: > >>> becomes in Java: >>> >>> >> >> Only when written by someone almost entir

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Xah Lee wrote: >> public class test { >> public static void main(String[] args) { >> String a = new String("a string"); >> String b = new String("another one"); >> StringBuffer c = new StringBuffer(40); >> c.append(a); c.append(b); >> System.out.println(c.toString()); >> }

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Timofei Shatrov wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > tried to confuse everyone with this message: > >> Xah Lee wrote: >> >>> So, a simple code like this in normal languages: > >>> becomes in Java: >>> >>> >> Only when written by someone almost entirely

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Xah Lee wrote: > So, a simple code like this in normal languages: > > a = "a string"; > b = "another one"; > c = join(a,b); > print c; > > or in lisp style > > (set a "a string") > (set b "another one") > (set c (join a b)) > (print c) > > becomes in Java: > > public class test { > public s

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >Xah Lee wrote: > >> So, a simple code like this in normal languages: >> becomes in Java: >> >> > >Only when written by someone almost entirely ignorant of Java. > Which is the st

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Xah Lee wrote: > So, a simple code like this in normal languages: > > a = "a string"; > b = "another one"; > c = join(a,b); > print c; > > or in lisp style > > (set a "a string") > (set b "another one") > (set c (join a b)) > (print c) > > becomes in Java: > > public class test { > public static

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

James Stroud wrote: there's a serious bug waiting here > This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. ThThis idiot is a troll. > This idiot is a troll. is idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This Remember, rockets went back to earth on such things (in pieces) ... > idiot is a troll. Thi

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. ThThis idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. is idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a troll. This idiot is a tro

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Uri Guttman wrote: > please DO NOT EVER followup xah's posts into comp.lang.perl.misc. he is > not wanted there and is considered a troll. he hates perl so why he > crossposts there is a question. if you want to followup, post only in > your own group. keep him and his useless threads out of c.l.p.

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

please DO NOT EVER followup xah's posts into comp.lang.perl.misc. he is not wanted there and is considered a troll. he hates perl so why he crossposts there is a question. if you want to followup, post only in your own group. keep him and his useless threads out of c.l.p.misc. uri -- Uri Guttma

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

Xah Lee wrote: > As part of this new syntax and purity, where everything in a program > is of Classes and Objects and Methods, many complex issues and concept > have arisen in OOP from both the OOP language machinery as well as a > engineering practice. I think the fact that many design patterns f

What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities Xah Lee, 20050128 Classes, Methods, Objects In computer languages, often a function definition looks like this: subroutine f (x1, x2, ...) { variables ... do this or that } In advanced languages such as LISP family, it is not uncommon to d

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

along with its 40 or so methods and other things. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/io/File.html (local copy) --- to be continued... This is part of an installment of the article “What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities” by Xah Lee, 20050128. The full text is at http://xahle

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:30:18 +0200, Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Quite embarrassing, but it's a runtime bug and got nothing to do with >the language per se. And it certainly manifests itself after the >hey-days of Turbo Pascal (when Borland seems to have lost interest in >maintaini

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Andrea Griffini wrote: >>Of course it is a language, just not a standardized one (if you include >>Borland's extensions that make it practical). > > The history of "runtime error 200" and its handling from > borland is a clear example of what I mean with a product. Hmm, I had to google this up..

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Anno Siegel wrote: > Tassilo v. Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc: > >>Also sprach Dale King: >> >> >>>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:02 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[...] I haven't ye

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:25:00 +0200, Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Of course it is a language, just not a standardized one (if you include >Borland's extensions that make it practical). The history of "runtime error 200" and its handling from borland is a clear example of what I mean

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Xah Lee wrote: > to be continued tomorrow. Please don't... mkb. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Paul McGuire wrote: > 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 OO

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

ce in computation. Because in OOP all data are embodied in classes, and wrapping a class to each and every variety of data is unmanageable, inheritance became the central means to manage data. - to be continued tomorrow. This is part of an installment of the article “What are OOP's J

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Matthias Buelow wrote: > And btw., I haven't used Pascal in a dozen years but my latest info is > that Turbo Pascal still lives in the form of "Delphi" for the Windows > platform. Surely not "dead" as I understand it. There's also FreePascal, which compiles approximately the same language as Tur

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Anno Siegel wrote: > These languages had an axe to grind. They were designed (by Niklas > Wirth) at a time of a raging discussion whether structured programming > (goto-less programming, mostly) is practical. Their goal was to prove > that it is, and in doing so the restrictive aspects of the lan

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Andrea Griffini wrote: >>With a few relaxations and extensions, you can get a surprisingly useful >>language out of the rigid Pascal, as evidenced by Turbo Pascal, one of >>the most popular (and practical) programming languages in the late 80ies >>/ start of the 90ies. > > It was not a language.

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:07:58 +0200, Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >With a few relaxations and extensions, you can get a surprisingly useful >language out of the rigid Pascal, as evidenced by Turbo Pascal, one of >the most popular (and practical) programming languages in the late 80ies

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Anno Siegel wrote: > I've been through Pascal, Modula2 and Oberon, and I agree. > In the short run they succeeded. For a number of years, languages of > that family were widely used, primarily in educational programming > but also in implementing large real-life systems. With a few relaxations a

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:09:43 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I am only familiar with its successor Modula-3 which, as far as I > understand, is Modula-2 with uppercased keywords and some OO-notion > bolted onto it (I still recall 'BRANDED' references). Modula-2 als

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Tassilo v. Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc: > Also sprach Dale King: > > > David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:02 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> [...] I haven't yet come across a language that i

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Also sprach Dale King: > David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: >> On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:02 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> [...] I haven't yet come across a language that is both statically and >>>strongly typed, in the strictest sense of the words. I wond

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:02 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Also sprach John W. Kennedy: > > [...] > > >>Most often, languages with strong typing can be found on the functional >>front (such as ML and Haskell). These lang

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

ment of the article “What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities” by Xah Lee, 20050128. The full text is at http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html © Copyright 2005 by Xah Lee. Verbatim duplication of the complete article for non-profit purposes is granted. The article is publish

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

are usually treated as a special method at the language level, its concept and linguistic issues is a OOP machinery complexity, while the Accessor concept is a OOP engineering complexity. - to be continued tomorrow. This is part of an installment of the article “What are OOP's Jargons and

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On Friday 27 May 2005 02:15 am, Piet van Oostrum wrote: > > "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (XL) wrote: > > > >XL> Joe: lang x is strongly typed > >XL> Dave: you mean statically typed? > >XL> John: no no, that's weakly typed. > > That should have been `weekly typed', according to the link below.

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

> "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (XL) wrote: >XL> Joe: lang x is strongly typed >XL> Dave: you mean statically typed? >XL> John: no no, that's weakly typed. That should have been `weekly typed', according to the link below. Maybe there is also `daily typed' or `monthly typed'? >XL> http://xah

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Joe: So I gave my girlfriend some flowers. Dave: What, like tulips? John: No, no, he gave her roses. Mike: Were they red roses? Xah: You MORONS, they were JUST _flowers_! Enough with the mother fucking jargon already!! The moral of the story being that when you're not active in a specific domain,

RE: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

[Paul Rubin] > Strong typing means there [are] a lot of variables whose names > are in ALL CAPS. +1 QOTW. =Tony.Meyer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I used to have a bunch of comp sci questions I would ask interview victims. > One of them was "what does it mean when a language is strongly typed?" I > once had somebody tell me it meant the language had long variable names, > and thus took a lot of typ

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe: lang x is strongly typed > Dave: you mean statically typed? > John: no no, that's weakly typed. > Mike: actually, it is dynamically typed! I used to have a bunch of comp sci questions I would ask interview victims. One of them was "what does it mean wh

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Joe: lang x is strongly typed Dave: you mean statically typed? John: no no, that's weakly typed. Mike: actually, it is dynamically typed! rely on the morons of the IT industry, every mother fucking one of them, to sing and propagate jargons. See also: http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/jargo

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

> "Tassilo v. Parseval" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (TvP) wrote: >TvP> Most often, languages with strong typing can be found on the functional >TvP> front (such as ML and Haskell). These languages have a dynamic typing >TvP> system. What do you mean with: 'Haskell has a dynamic typing system'? -- P

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On 5/26/2005 at 3:11:44 AM, alex goldman wrote: > What other meanings are there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongly_typed http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StronglyTyped -- Regards, John McGrath -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

alex goldman wrote: > John McGrath wrote: > >>Unfortunately, there is no >>consensus as to what the term means. > > If the language allows the programmer to write programs from the 'slack' > domain, by saying "just trust me on this", then it's not strongly typed. > > What other meanings are ther

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

John McGrath wrote: > Unfortunately, there is no > consensus as to what the term means. If the language allows the programmer to write programs from the 'slack' domain, by saying "just trust me on this", then it's not strongly typed. What other meanings are there? I wasn't aware of the lack of c

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:02 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also sprach John W. Kennedy: [...] > Most often, languages with strong typing can be found on the functional > front (such as ML and Haskell). These languages have a dynamic typing > system. I haven't yet come ac

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Xah Lee wrote: > The Rise of "Static" versus "Instance" variables Please do not feed the troll * > -- > to be continued tomorrow. Please don't > This is part of an installment of the article > "What are OOP's Jargons and Comp

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Xah Lee coughed up: > The Rise of "Static" versus "Instance" variables You are clearly unable to form a proper argument, *AND* you have irritated nearly everyone frequently. Ahthe blessed silence -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] coughed up: > Thomas G. Marshall wrote: > *Missattributed* --Thomas G. Marshall (I) did /not/ write the following: >>> I am not familiar with modern Fortran. Surely it at least has >>> argument prototyping by now? > > Since the 1990 standard, if Fortran subroutines and functions

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

On 5/23/2005 at 7:54:24 PM, alex goldman wrote: > I'm just curious, what do you mean by strong typing, and which strongly > typed languages do you know? "Strongly typed" is not a very useful term, unless your intent is to generate confusion or start an argument. Unfortunately, there is no consen

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Wibble wrote: > Thats how common lisp specifies a vector. > > Andreas, your link indicates that lisp is a Weakly typed language not > strong. Theres no compile time type semantics, at least in CommonLisp, > MacLisp, ZetaLisp or FranzLisp. > > (setq foo #(1 2 3)) > (setq foo 1) > (setq foo "Whate

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

of static versus instance members, is one complexity arising out of OOP. -- to be continued tomorrow. This is part of an installment of the article “What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities” by Xah Lee, 20050128. The full text is at http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Thomas G. Marshall wrote: > > I am not familiar with modern Fortran. Surely it at least has argument > > prototyping by now? Since the 1990 standard, if Fortran subroutines and functions are placed in MODULEs, or if INTERFACEs are provided, the compiler checks that procedures are called with the

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Wibble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas, your link indicates that lisp is a Weakly typed language not > strong. Theres no compile time type semantics, at least in CommonLisp, > MacLisp, ZetaLisp or FranzLisp. There are runtime semantics that enforce types. > From your link: >When the t

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Thats how common lisp specifies a vector. Andreas, your link indicates that lisp is a Weakly typed language not strong. Theres no compile time type semantics, at least in CommonLisp, MacLisp, ZetaLisp or FranzLisp. (setq foo #(1 2 3)) (setq foo 1) (setq foo "Whatever") Theres no type associate

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Andreas Rottmann wrote: > You get terminology totally wrong here. As already said, Lisp is > stronger typed than C, but C is statically typed, whereas Lisp is > dynamically typed. In Lisp (or Scheme), all variables have types: > > (define foo #(1 2 3)) > (vector? foo) => #t > (boolean? foo) => #t

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

John W. Kennedy coughed up: > alex goldman wrote: >> John W. Kennedy wrote: >> >> >>> Strong >>> typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since >>> the late 1950's. >> >> >> Is Fortran a strongly typed language? I don't think so. Strong >> typing has been invented in the 70's,

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

alex goldman wrote: > John W. Kennedy wrote: > > >>Strong >>typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the >>late 1950's. > > > Is Fortran a strongly typed language? I don't think so. Strong typing has > been invented in the 70's, if I'm not mistaken, when ML was invent

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Wibble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Java or even C is more strongly typed than lisp or tcl which > dont really have a concept of a typed variable. > Lisp only does runtime type checking unless you do wierd > unnatural things. > You get terminology totally wrong here. As already said, Lisp is stro

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Xah Lee wrote: > The Rise of Classes, Methods, Objects 1) Most of the information you posted was incomplete and much of it is just plain wrong. 2) What you posted was not perl related. Are you deliberately trying to make yourself a laughingstock? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Also sprach alex goldman: > Tassilo v. Parseval wrote: >> Most often, languages with strong typing can be found on the functional >> front (such as ML and Haskell). These languages have a dynamic typing >> system. > > No, ML & Haskell are strongly and statically typed. Read this paper if > inter

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Tassilo v. Parseval wrote: > Also sprach John W. Kennedy: > >> alex goldman wrote: >>> John W. Kennedy wrote: >>> >>> Strong typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the late 1950's. >>> >>> I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which >>>

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Also sprach John W. Kennedy: > alex goldman wrote: >> John W. Kennedy wrote: >> >> >>>Strong typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages >>>since the late 1950's. >> >> I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which strongly >> typed languages do you know? >

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

John W. Kennedy wrote: > Strong > typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the > late 1950's. Is Fortran a strongly typed language? I don't think so. Strong typing has been invented in the 70's, if I'm not mistaken, when ML was invented, but strong typing has never been

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Jonathan Bartlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming > > languages as he is of Python and Perl. > > I think you're misreading some of what is being said. Given how clear

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Java or even C is more strongly typed than lisp or tcl which dont really have a concept of a typed variable. Lisp only does runtime type checking unless you do wierd unnatural things. I suppose ADA or Eiffel might have stronger typing than java, but I dont know those languages. I guess strong is

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

alex goldman wrote: > John W. Kennedy wrote: > > >>Strong >>typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the >>late 1950's. > > > I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which strongly > typed languages do you know? Unfortunately, I have seen the meani

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

John W. Kennedy wrote: > Strong > typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the > late 1950's. I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which strongly typed languages do you know? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

John W. Kennedy wrote: > inescapable necessity for compiling to efficient object code. Strong > typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the > late 1950's. Give Lee another century and he will get there, hopefully :-D. -- John MexIT: ht

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Xah Lee wrote: > So, a simple code like this in normal languages: > a = "a string"; > b = "another one"; > c = join(a,b); > print c; > > or in lisp style > (set a "a string") > (set b "another one") > (set c (join a b)) > (print c) > > becomes in pure OOP languages: > public class test { > publ

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Xah Lee wrote: > As part of this new syntax and purity, where everything in a program is > of Classes and Objects and Methods, many complex issues and concept > have arisen in OOP. Yes and it is easy to communicate a class which represents some thing determined by object oriented analysis and can

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > I think you're misreading some of what is being said. I think you're giving the author too much credit. -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis Love is the true price of lov

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snap] put it on your blog -- http://www.peter.dembinski.prv.pl -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Paul McGuire coughed up: > 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? ...[rip]... > You certainly seem to have a lot of energy and enthusiasm for these > topics. It would be

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

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,

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Mike Meyer wrote: > "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming > languages as he is of Python and Perl. I think you're misreading some of what is being said. > Nested subroutines date back to Algol, which was first specified in >

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming languages as he is of Python and Perl. > In advanced languages such as LISP family, it is not uncommon to define > functions inside a function. For example: > subroutine f (x1, x2, ...) { >

Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

ty are a win hands down over the bad old days. Lisp is not a more advanced language than Java. Its 30+ years older and shows it in alot places. Lisp has some things I wish were in Java but the corralary holds true. Object orient programming in Lisp is nice too. Xah Lee wrote: > What are OOP&

What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities Xah Lee, 20050128 The Rise of Classes, Methods, Objects In computer languages, often a function definition looks like this: subroutine f (x1, x2, ...) { variables ... do this or that } In advanced languages such as LISP family, it is not uncomm

What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities Xah Lee, 20050128 The Rise of Classes, Methods, Objects In computer languages, often a function definition looks like this: subroutine f (x1, x2, ...) { variables ... do this or that } In advanced languages such as LISP family, it is not uncomm