Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!orstcs!mist!budd
From: budd@mist.cs.orst.edu (Tim Budd)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: "Paradigm" (Re: OOP in C)
Message-ID: <14394@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Date: 12 Dec 89 16:55:12 GMT
References: <11294@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU
Reply-To: budd@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Tim Budd)
Organization: Oregon State Univ. -- Computer Science
Lines: 16

In article <11294@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
>Okay, now *everybody* look up "paradigm" in the dictionary. Don't
>put it off. Do it now.

yes - do that.  And when you are totally confused, and wonder what
inflectional forms of latin sentences has to do with object oriented
programming; then go read Thomas Kuhn's book, ``The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions'' (University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed. 1970).  No, Kuhn
doesn't talk about object oriented programming.  But Kuhn is largely
responsible for the modern use of the term paradigm in scientific (and
those that would be scientific) circles.

Unfortunately, most people that use the term don't use it in the Kuhnian
sense.  I'm afraid, like ``methodology'' (originally the study of methods),
it is one of those words that once was defined to mean one thing, and has
now been totally redefined by our field.