From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrick Kelly" To: "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com> <4BC836D2020000CC000269E3@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <4BC855DF020000CC00026A46@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com> <000301cadd8e$0dd7c720$29875560$@gmail.com> <4BC870C8020000CC00026AD9@wlgw07.wlu.ca> In-Reply-To: <4BC870C8020000CC00026AD9@wlgw07.wlu.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:27:10 -0400 Message-ID: <000701cadd92$6f228f20$4d67ad60$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04d07964-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >From: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-bounces@9fans.net] On = Behalf Of Karljurgen Feuerherm >Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:15 PM >To: 'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs' >Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! >Ok--so it's agreed that it's not OO that's the problem, it's the users, = then, who don't know which tool to use when. Not at all the same thing. =20 No, we don't agree. I said there were places objects were useful, I = never said object orientation was useful; not at all, the same thing. You can write imperative-style code in a functional language, and you = can write functional-style code in an imperative language. That does not = mean you code is auto-magically imperative or functional. >K