Talk:Inheritance (object-oriented programming): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:21, 7 June 2003

Revision as of 21:40, 9 June 2003

Line 129:

:Well beleive it or not. This article WAS originally called [[Inheritance in object-oriented programming]] as was [[Class in object-oriented programming]], [[Polymorphism in object-oriented programming]] and[[Abstraction in object-oriented programming]]. Other articles on the subject of OOP were variously named and disambiguated to differentiate them from other uses of the pertinent words. Then, somebody decided to make the disambiguation consistent by using the parenthesis. And everybody was happy, until you decided that it had to be changed for some reason. So why move it? What is the point in breaking the consistency of disambiguation. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 08:21 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Then the decision was probably wrong or right in that time but become wrong now. I remember an article called [[immutable object]]. It is mostly discussed in OOP context. But it is also important in languages that adopted reference mode rather than value model, though known far less. And I guess so are other topics that are heavily tied with oop paradigm. Besides, can you tell us the reason why you think (object-oriented programming) suffix is better than (computer science) for disambiguation purpose? To disambiguate, cs is broad enough. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 21:40 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)