Content deleted Content added
Stan Shebs (talk | contribs) a heavily overloaded (ha ha) term |
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 40:
[[object theory]] would be a good additional place to discuss fine points of theory, but this article should be the general explanation of the range of what is called "object-oriented programming". It's not that big of a deal to say that there is a disagreement; NPOV means reporting points of view without trying to anoint any particular opinion as the "truth". ABC's assertion that "XYZ is not true object-oriented programming" just means that you report it as an assertion of ABC; removing the report entirely is taking the POV that ABC is so wrong that the assertion should be censored from the article. People that think they know the definition of object-oriented programming should probably excuse themselves from touching this article; a bald list of all the multiple definitions that have been used will make a longish article all by itself. (BTW, I have heard people use "subprogram" and even used it myself a couple times, but it's a somewhat archaic usage from the heyday of Fortran and Cobol - yes, I was there, but just a teenager I swear :-) ). [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 19:13 23 May 2003 (UTC)
:I was thinking and I agree that it's possible to discuss object-oriented programming in general, if not easy. There is a term that is quite popular and it should be strange if wikipedia doesn't cover that term mainly not as part of some article. But still I also think we should cover use of object, which can be part of OOP but can be outside. Besides, I realized it's possible to merge the article latter if needed. So I will write an article [[object theory]] I proposed. We will see and we can discuss again we should combine them or rename or anything else. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 21:45 25 May 2003 (UTC)
| |||