Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 23:41:21 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Greg Pavelcak <g.pavelcak@comcast.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How do hackers drive? Message-ID: <xzp1xsriuem.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20031101205412.GA15226@bishop.my.domain> (Greg Pavelcak's message of "Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:54:12 -0500") References: <3FA301F6.2010208@potentialtech.com> <20031101175942.GA2082@online.fr> <20031101205412.GA15226@bishop.my.domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Pavelcak <g.pavelcak@comcast.net> writes: > I'm a non-programmer. Is it the OO languages that talk about > "methods" when it looks like they're talking about something like > functions, or is that something else? > > Choosing an appropriate technical term can be that difficult, but > it's downright silly to choose a weird term for something that > already has a perfectly good name. I can't stand to read the stuff. > Every time I see "method" it pisses me off. "function" is not a perfectly good name. "procedure" or "subroutine" is better in most cases (except when the function actually is a function), and it is necessary to differentiate "methods" which operate on objects from "procedures" which don't. Formal type theory provides us with better and more precise terms than "method", but you'd probably like them even less (ever heard of "generators" and "observers"?) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp1xsriuem.fsf>