Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!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: <77500023@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 89 01:38:51 GMT
References: <11294@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:goofy.megatest.UUCP:11294:m.cs.uiuc.edu:77500023:000:2239
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!render    Dec 15 14:23:00 1989


Written 10:41 pm  Dec 14, 1989 by djones@megatest.UUCP:
>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.' 

Actually, I have a compact version of Merriam-Webster's and the line
that you quote was not there.  However, as you say:

>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.

Hey, world view.  How about "Object-oriented Weltanschauung"?   You could 
impress a lot of people with that.  (Silly people, for the most part.)

All the points you make (which I have deleted for brevity's sake) are
valid.  Still, like everything else associated with object-orientation,
there is a lot of stuff that will be decided by general consensus.  Perhaps
it's good to raise the point that "paradigm" as used in this case is 
improper, but it is more important, I think, to hammer on the fact that
there is no general object-oriented way of doing things.  Yes, an OO way 
is evolving, but I don't expect (or want) to see the _IEEE/ANSI Standard
Guide to Object-Oriented Systems and Terminology_ for a long while.

Okay, I admit you have to refer to "doing things in an object-oriented way" 
by some simpler phrase.  "Object-oriented methodology" is fine with me, just 
because MY dictionary (Merriam-Webster's, which is, of course, better than 
all YOUR dictionaries) defines "methodology" as "a body of methods and rules 
followed in a science of discipline".  You can argue about whether CS is a 
science of discipline, but the word seems to fit the our needs.  For those 
who think this usage of the word "methodology" is a recent corruption,
the dictionary is copyrighted 1974, so it's not all that recent. 

Now if you want to argue grammar, let's talk about "object-orientedness"...

hal.

   "An object never serves the same function as its image or its name."
                  			-- Rene Magritte