Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Stan Shebs (talk | contribs) a heavily overloaded (ha ha) term |
||
Line 38:
::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)
[[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)
| |||