On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:53:26 -0500
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> Seriously, though, OO languages, being born of academia, were designed
> *not* to be quick-'n-dirty languages. They were designed with
> large projects in mind (the whole Software Design Life Cycle bit).
Oh how I would love to find who came up with that particular catch phrase
and retort with my 10.5's in the posterior of said person.
> If you want a (IMHO) good mix between QnD and OO, try Python. It
> is totally comfortable with procedural coding and OO coding.
Ohhhh yeah. To me coding is organic. I know what I want the program to
do, I dunno how to get there. Actually doing helps me think and see where to
go. Ya get this working, then you branch out and do this. In the process
this doesn't work so you tweak it a little. The whole notion of designing the
program before you program it seems odd because programming is designing IMHO.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp0I57YWt7wK.pgp
Description: PGP signature