[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:39:09 -0600 (MDT)
> Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > It seem to me that you're taking basically any sound development practice
> > and calling it "OO". I find that odd, since most of it predates what we
> > know as OO chronologically,
> Does it?
> Simula was standardized in 1967, so a good deal of the OO methodology
> already existed 34 years ago.
Oh, you wily so and so.
If you've been following this thread, you'll see that I've been generally
careful to narrow things down to "modern OO", i.e. the generation of Kay,
Stroustroup and Meyer.
I'm quite familaiar with the history of OO, and I even hinted at Simula in
an earlier post through my indication of simulation frameworks as a parent
of OO (along with early AI K-rep through frames & slots).
But you seized on one of the few places where I got lazy and didn't make
this careful distinction yet again.
But that's OK. I'd have done the same thing.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python