Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!render
From: render@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: "Paradigm" (Re: OOP in C)
Message-ID: <77500020@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 89 01:38:51 GMT
References: <11294@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:goofy.megatest.UUCP:11294:m.cs.uiuc.edu:77500020:000:1295
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!render    Dec 12 11:07:00 1989


Written  5:19 pm  Dec 11, 1989 by djones@megatest.UUCP:
>Okay, now *everybody* look up "paradigm" in the dictionary. Don't
>put it off. Do it now.

I'll bite.  Here's what I get:

	paradigm:  1. model, pattern.  (according to Merriam-Webster)

	paradigm:  1. a pattern, example or model.  (Webster's Unabridged)

So, what's your point?  Do you think everybody using it incorrectly?  Since I 
think that most are using it in the sense of a "model of programming" or 
"pattern of development", I don't think that the word is being used all that
badly.  Still, the word is (I believe) better used to express a physical
model, pattern, or example, so it might be better to say that a particular
object-oriented system is a paradigm of object-oriented programming.  I do
not use "object-oriented paradigm" much myself, not because I see it as 
incorrect, but because I don't think that there is a single, general object-
oriented way of doing things.  This may change (and doubtless there are some
who disagree with me already), but I think discussions on proper terminology 
should focus more on the danger of trying to standardize without a consensus
rather than on fine points of grammar.

hal. 
(Me?  I like, "The Tao of Object-Orientation," but the Tao that can be
 spoken is not the true Tao.)