Content deleted Content added
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Agree with mintguy |
||
Line 27:
:You mean mailing-list? Sure. By the way, I rewrote the subprogram so that it is more apparent that why the article is named as subprogram. Sometimes, we need to avoid common terms because they are too POV'd. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 17:04 23 May 2003 (UTC)
::(NB I wrote the following before having read the latest round of your comments, Mintguy, Taku, but had an 'edit conflict')
:: I've just read and understood your arguments, Taku, but have to say I agree with Mintguy. Moving the content of this page to title that very few people use is not a good thing to do. With this in mind, am I correct in saying that you see two problems?:
::# There are aspects of programming (e.g inheritance) that some people call OOP and some people do not. i.e. there are different POVs about what OOP is.
::# There are uses of objects in programming (e.g. the objects in Ada) that no-one calls OOP.
::My view is that the best solution is that issue 1) can be discussed quite happily in this article. 2) requires a separate article e.g [[object (programming)]] or maybe [[object theory]] (not sure how widespread this term is and so am hesistant to agree to use it all), which links to this one, and devolves significant chunks of work to this article. That article could have more historical information than this article. Naturally this article would also link back to that one ... 'Programming languages may support objects but are rarely described as object-''oriented'' languages. See [[object_(programming)]] for a more general article'. What do you think? [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21]] 17:16 23 May 2003 (UTC)
| |||