Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: The Oo challenge
Message-ID: <8500@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 89 22:53:05 GMT
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 47


I would like to start a thread of discussion concerning what I believe
to be the most pressing issue in Object Oriented programming today,
namely making a grab for the names which have "oo" in them.

It is all part of a bigger phenomenon I call the techno-conventional
land rush.  For example, it is a well known fact that when a new discipline
in mathematics is dreamed up, there is a frenzy to prove all the easy
theorems, and thus get one's name into the introductory textbooks.
(And we all know what a standards committee does.)

Sometimes names can be even easier to think of than easy math theorems.
In the past, we have seen programming-language designers clamor all
over themselves to grab up and subvert the meanings of all the abstract
nouns -- "type", "sort", "module", "class", and now "object" are just a few
of the generic words which have been seized and concreted. (I now
use the word "kind" extensively when talking about programs. No doubt
it will be the next to go.)

We must not fail to recognize the importance of the name-space grab, and
specificly the scrap over the "oo" words. Already we have seen the ughly
spectacle of the now infamous "zoo" controversy.

This my fellow objectiphiles, is just beginning.


Possible topics for discussion...

1.   How to find and recognize "oo" words.

2.   Ethics of "oo" acronyming. (Must the "oo" stand for "object-oriented"?)

3.   Techniques in acronym design.

4.   What constitutes a claim? (Is it sufficient to post a message saying,
     "I am working on a system called 'book', which is scheduled for 
     completion sometime during this life.")

5.   Alternate spellings.



***
   
P.s.

   "Ooze" is mine, so hands off, okay?