Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah!

["Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]

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.
 
And to be pedantic, since you give this example, the sun does revolve around the earth, so long as you choose the earth as your point of reference... Certain points of reference are to be preferred for certain things, as you said. So OO or not, as appropriate.
 
K

>>> "Patrick Kelly" <kameo76890@gmail.com> 16/04/2010 1:55:50 pm >>>
I was just speaking generally.
One of my major programming languages is Ada, and I doubt anyone would say that isn't big on provability. I've used objects a couple times, in places where they do in fact help, but those cases are, in general, not read properly. Using an object in the wrong place, which is most places, does lead to worse code. For most people, using the wrong tool for the wrong job is foolish, but for OOP lovers...

The question isn't how do you prove it does reduce static provability, but how do you prove it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that the sun revolves around the earth, but we all know that's not true. That being said, there are studies out there about using the wrong paradigm for the wrong job, objects do come up.


[-- Attachment #2: HTML --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 1582 bytes --]