Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2005 05:36:08 EDT, Tim Daneliuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>
>
>>On a more general note, for all the promises made over 3 decades about
>>how OO was the answer to our problems, we have yet to see quantum
>
>
> OO goes back /that/ far? (2 decades, yes, I might even go 2.5
> decades for academia <G>). My college hadn't even started "structured
> programming" (beyond COBOL's PERFORM statement) by the time I graduated
> in 1980. Well, okay... SmallTalk... But for most of the "real world", OO
> became a known concept with C++ mid to late 80s.
>
OO ideas predate C++ considerably. The idea of encapsulation and
abstract data types goes back to the 1960s IIRC. I should point
out that OO isn't particularly worse than other paradigms for
claiming to be "The One True Thing". It's been going on for
almost a half century. I've commented on this previously:
http://www.tundraware.com/Technology/Bullet/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
