3 ms·
In some sense that's what the second O says, isn't it? It's not called Object Programming, but Object-Oriented Programming.
by jonsen 16y ago
In some sense that's what the second O says, isn't it?
It's not called Object Programming, but Object-Oriented Programming.
- bediger 16y agoBut isn't that where it goes astray? If we all called it "Class Oriented Programming" we'd come closer to an accurate name. "Class Oriented Programming" as a name might take away the emphasis on instances, and put emphasis on designing classes. Or not. There appears to be no bottom to human stupidity.
- stcredzero 16y agoIf we apply a design pattern from Smalltalk, we have Concepts. Every Concept has another concept which is its Misconception. This gives us an infinite regress of misconceptions, unless we can come up with a Metamisconception, which is a concept which is its own erroneous misconception. Then we can implement unbounded stupidity in a system of finite size.