Sorry to be a grouch, but can we change this thread to OO instead of the
advertised TeX:hurrah! thread?

I'm interested in the TeX news, but not so interested in the OO/language
debate that no doubt will go on for a while...

Thanks!

-joe

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>wrote:

>  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.
>