Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: "Paradigm" (Re: OOP in C)
Message-ID: <11345@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 15 Dec 89 04:41:12 GMT
References: <77500020@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 61

From article <77500020@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by render@m.cs.uiuc.edu:
> 
> 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?

Yes.

Because you read the rest of the line in Merrium-Webster's, you know
that it continued, 'esp: an outstandingly clear or typical example
or archetype.' An "object-oriented paradigm" would be a program which was
written so expertly as to be an exemplary model for other programs of that
sort, or one which was so typical of object-oriented programs
as to serve as a definitive example. But in any case, it is *a program*,
or a model of *a program*.  It is not a methodology. It is not a moral
or ethical system. It is not a World View.

[ The poster goes on to say that "paradigm" more properly applies to
a concrete model, and that "object-oriented" is ill-defined.
I concur. ]

I am aware of the fact that usage determines meaning, and hence the
original meaning of "paradigm" is lost to the programming community. It's
a pet peeve. (Perhaps I should post this to alt.peeves.) I think the reason
it bothers me is that I suspect the new usage is only a pretentious way
of obscuring the fact that when we talk about object-oriented things we are
discussing very ill-defined notions. Pretend the word "paradigm" were
illegal. Then how would you say object-oriented paradigm?  (I know, Fen,
you would say, 'Object-oriented paradigm,' but just play along, okay?)

You might say "object-oriented method", or "object-oriented discipline".
But then someone might ask, 'What IS that method?', or, 'What IS that
discipline?'  But when you say, "object-oriented paradigm", ooooh ...
the response is more likely to be a knowing nod.

I am reminded of "aspect" and "factor". When I hear a sentence with one of
those words in it, an alarm goes off. I ask, what is the substance of
this sentence? What objects and actions does it describe? Although
both "aspect" and "factor" are perfectly good words, the answer to
the question is generally, none whatsoever.  In general usage, these
words are used simply as syntactic glue to bind words in such a way
that the connotations of those words convey an intended value-judgement or
emotion, but no concrete meaning.

Am I wrong in suspecting "paradigm" also?

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


Perfect!  (But how come *everybody* thinks he's already enlightened?)