Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plx!titn!jordan
From: jordan@titn.TITN (Jordan Bortz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: PARADIGM FLAME
Message-ID: <236@titn.TITN>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 13:33:25 EST
Article-I.D.: titn.236
Posted: Mon Oct 26 13:33:25 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Oct-87 00:39:29 EST
Organization: Higher Level Software, Piedmont, CA
Lines: 87
Keywords: paradigm != model

<<<FLAME ON FORCE 10>>>>

I'm sick and tired of wading through countless object oriented documents,
each one attempting to outdo the other in terms of raping the word
paradigm.

For some reason, OO programmers everywhere have seen the word paradigm
written somewhere, think that it means model, or way-about-thinking-about-
programming (which it does not), and, without bothering to look it up,
splay it around documents for our edification anb obfusication.

Bobrow & Stefik, in the LOOPS manual (1983, Xerox Parc) are particularly
gleeful abusers of the word paradigm.  In fact, you only have to wade
three words through their document to see paradigm:

Chapter 1:

"Four distinct paradigms of programming available in the computer 
science community today are oriented around procedures, objects, data access
and rules..."

And on page 78, (probably a record setter), paradigm appears in 4 out
of 5 sentences in paragraph 1, 2 out of 4 in paragraph 2, and 1 out 1
in paragraph 3:

"RulesSets in Loops are integrated with procedure oriented, object-oriented
and data oriented programming PARADIGMS.  In contrast to single-PARADIGM rule
systems, this integration has two major benefits.  It facilitates the
construction of programs which don't entirely fit the rule-oriented PARADIGM.
Rule oriented programming can be used selectively for representing the
appropriate decision-making knowledge in a large program. Integration
also makes it convenient to use the other PARADIGMS to help organize the
interaction between rule-sets.

Using the object-oriented PARADIGM....etc. etc."

Of course, in each of these cases, the author really means model (or 
maybe 'philosophy.' If you re-read the paragraph(s) with 'model' substituted
for paradigm, not only is it more readable, it seems to convey the
idea more succinctly.

So what does paradigm mean?

According to Webster's Ninth:

Paradigm: 1: EXAMPLE, PATTERN esp. an outstandingly clear or
typical example or archetype (looking up archetype reveals PROTOTYPE
as a definition) 2: an example of a conjugation
or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms.

So a PARADIGM is an EXAMPLE! and *NOT* a MODEL or PHILOSOPHY:

eg,  The following is a paradigm of how to access C arguments:

main(argc, argv)
	int	argc;	
	char *argv;
	{
	while	(argc--)
		printf(*argv++);
	}

So, to some up:  since paradigm does *not* mean model or philosophy, 
please do not confuse us or try to impress us when a simple word
will convey the same idea more clearly, succinctly, and without distracting
our brains with an obscure word used incorrectly.

<<<FLAME OFF>>>>

(neighboring grasslands still burning)

                      "Gee Eddie, look at that Smoke!"
                      "Yeah, and the flames, too!"

FALLOUT SHIELD:

This flame is not directed at Bobrow & Stefik, or their document (which
is otherwise excellent), but at the incorrect USAGE of an "OO" word.


	Jordan

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Jordan A. Bortz       Higher Level Software                                |
|  sun!plx!titn!jordan   1085 Warfield Ave  Piedmont,CA 94611  (415) 268-8948 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+